Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335

DOI 10.1007/s40091-016-0134-9

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Wind effects on ‘Z’ plan-shaped tall building: a case study

Rajdip Paul1 • Sujit Kumar Dalui1

Received: 24 August 2015 / Accepted: 3 August 2016 / Published online: 17 August 2016
Ó The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract The present paper is centered on the study to Introduction

understand the behavior of various surfaces of a ‘Z’ plan-
shaped tall building under varying wind directions. For that As buildings are cantilever structures, there is generation of
purpose, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) package of base moment whenever it is under lateral load. The mag-
ANSYS is used. The length scale is considered as 1:300. nitude of the moment increases considerably with slen-
Force coefficients both in the along and across wind derness, because the moment is proportional to the square
direction as well as the external surface pressure coeffi- of the height of the building, just like a cantilever beam
cients for different faces of the object building are deter- under varying loads. Because of the scarcity of land these
mined and listed for wind incidence angle 0°–150° with days, vertical construction is given due importance and the
increment of 30°. The wind flow pattern around the buildings are much higher than before, making them highly
building showing flow separation characteristics and vor- susceptible to horizontal loading like wind load. In addition
tices are presented. The variation of wind pressure on to this, if the plan of the building is unconventional, then
different surfaces of the building is clearly shown by wind analysis is a task of great complexity because of the
contour plots. The nature of deviation of external pressure many flow situations arising from the interaction of the
coefficients along the height of the building as well as wind with the structures. There are several different phe-
along the perimeter of the building for different wind nomena giving rise to dynamic response of tall structures
angles of attack is presented. The force coefficient (Cf) under wind such as buffeting, vortex shedding, galloping
along the X direction is extreme for 15° wind angle and and flutter. Simple quasi-static analysis of wind loading,
along Y direction it is maximum for 60° angle of attack. which is globally applied to the design of low- to medium-
Unsteady vortices are generated in the wake region due to a rise structures, can be unacceptably conservative for the
combination of positive and negative pressure in the design of very tall buildings. At present, the wind tunnel
windward and leeward faces, respectively. model experiment and numerical simulation using com-
putational fluid dynamics (CFD) are the available research
Keywords Tall building  CFD  Wind effect  tools to get deeper insight into the behavior of gigantic
Wind angle  Force coefficient  Pressure coefficient structures subjected to turbulent wind load.
In the definition of the overall strength, durability and
risk of failure of structures, extreme wind speed is an
important factor, mostly reliant on the general weather
& Sujit Kumar Dalui pattern over many years and local environmental and
sujit_dalui@rediffmail.com topographical conditions.
Rajdip Paul The precise evaluation of the extreme wind is mainly
rajdippaul87@gmail.com connected with the quality of statistical data of wind
1 velocity which is associated with performance and cali-
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, Howrah, bration of measuring instruments, common averaging time,
India same height above the ground, roughness of the terrain, etc.

123
320 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335

digitized into 2.1 9 106 finite volumes. Irwin (2007)

reviewed a number of bluff body aerodynamic phenomena
and their effect on the structural safety and occupant
comfort. Zhang and Gu (2008) correlated the numerical

Fig. 1 Domain used for the study

The predicted wind speed is usually enumerated as the

maximum wind speed which is surpassed, on average, once
in every N year (return periods); for example, I.S: 875
(Part-3) (1987) requires that ordinary structures be
designed for an annual exceed probability of 2 % which is
Fig. 2 Plan of ‘Z’ plan-shaped building model
equivalent to 50 years of return periods.
Past studies have been carried out by researchers with
the help of model analysis to get more accurate information
regarding wind structure interaction. Kareem (1986)
deliberated the details of the interference and proximity
effects on the dynamic response of prismatic bluff bodies.
Lin et al. (2004) discussed the findings of a widespread
wind tunnel study on local wind forces on isolated tall
buildings based on the experimental outcome of nine
square and rectangular models (1:500). Liang et al. (2004)
proposed the empirical formulae for different wind-in-
duced dynamic torsional responses through the analytical
model. Gomes et al. (2005) enumerated the results from the
studies of L- and U-shaped models of 1:100 scale. Lam and
Zhao (2006) examined in detail wind flow around a row of
three square-plan tall buildings closely arranged in a row at
a wind angle h = 30°. The computational domain was Fig. 3 Isometric view of the model

Table 1 Surface pressure coefficients for a square building

Plan of the building As per h Wind angle (h) (°) Cpe for surfaces
w
A B C D

ANSYS CFX h 0 ?0.80 -0.40 -0.60 -0.60

¼5
w 90 -0.60 -0.60 ?0.80 -0.40
AS-NZS 1170-2:2002 h 0 ?0.80 -0.50 -0.65 -0.65
Any
w 90 -0.65 -0.65 ?0.80 -0.50
ASCE 7-10 h 0 ?0.80 -0.50 -0.70 -0.70
Any
w 90 -0.70 -0.70 ?0.80 -0.50
I.S: 875 (Part-3) (1987) 3 h 0 ?0.80 -0.25 -0.80 -0.80
\ \6
2 w 90 -0.80 -0.80 ?0.80 -0.25

123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335 321

simulation and experimental investigations of wind-in-

duced interference effects. Fu et al. (2008) enumerated the
field measurements of the characteristics of the boundary
layer and storm response of two super tall buildings. Irwin
(2009) centered on the subject of determining and con-
trolling the structural response under wind action for super
tall buildings which demand much more pragmatically
modeled wind engineering, since building codes and
standards are not practical enough for dealing with such
soaring structures. Tse et al. (2009) discussed the general
concept to determine the wind loadings and wind-induced
responses of square tall buildings with different sizes of
Fig. 4 Mesh pattern around the building
chamfered and recessed corners while maintaining the total
usable floor area of the building by escalating the number
of stories which is directly associated with the economics
of the building. Bhatnagar et al. (2012) presented the
results of a wind tunnel study in an open circuit boundary
layer flow condition, carried out on a model of low-rise
building with sawtooth roof. Tominaga and Stathopoulos
(2012) modeled turbulent scalar flux in computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) for near-field dispersion around buildings.
Raj et al. (2013) carried out an experimental boundary
layer wind tunnel study to observe the effect of base shear,
base moment and twisting moment developed due to wind
load on a rigid building model having the same floor area,
but different cross-sectional shapes with the variation of
wind incidence angle. Muehleisen and Patrizi (2013)
developed parametric equations to find out the values of
Fig. 5 Name of the different faces of the building pressure coefficients (Cp) on the surfaces of rectangular

Table 2 Force coefficients for

Plan of the building Wind angle (°) Force coefficients Cf
the building
Along X Along Y

0 ?0.96 ?0.01 & 0

15 ?1.02 ?0.29
30 ?0.88 ?0.52
60 ?0.73 ?1.24
90 ?0.01 & 0 ?1.04
120 -0.35 ?0.62
150 -0.61 ?0.35

Table 3 Surface pressure

Wind angle (°) Cpe (face average value) for different faces of the building
coefficients for the building
Face A Face B Face C Face D Face E Face F Face G Face H

0 0.74 0.84 0.73 -0.58 -0.41 -0.47 -0.46 -0.62

15 0.69 0.66 0.61 -0.66 -0.54 -0.52 -0.45 -0.50
30 0.73 0.29 0.36 -0.50 -0.46 -0.50 -0.44 0.06
60 -0.50 -0.55 -0.42 -0.30 -0.37 -0.48 -0.50 0.50
90 -0.64 -0.47 -0.52 -0.43 -0.61 0.06 -0.18 0.69
120 -0.57 -0.38 -0.49 -0.48 -0.64 0.74 0.81 0.53
150 -0.54 -0.41 -0.43 -0.69 -0.21 0.87 0.86 -0.37

123
322 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335

low-rise building models from experimental wind tunnel Verma et al. (2013) described the effects of wind incidence
data. Amin and Ahuja (2013) investigated through wind angle on wind pressure distribution on square-plan tall
tunnel studies rectangular building models of different side buildings. Bhattacharyya et al. (2014) investigated the
ratios (ratio of building’s depth to width) ranging from 0.25 mean pressure distribution on various faces of ‘E’ plan-
to 4, keeping the area and height the same for all models, shaped tall building through experimental and analytical
while the wind angle changes at an interval of 15° from 0° studies for a wide range of wind incidence angle. Chak-
to 90°. Kushal et al. (2013) recognized that the plan shape raborty et al. (2014) enumerated the results of a wind
of the building affects the wind pressure to a great degree. tunnel study and numerical studies on ‘?’ plan-shaped tall

Fig. 6 Wind flow pattern

around the building for various
wind angles

123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335 323

building and compared the results for 0° and 45° wind Height fluctuates for distinctive terrain category. The dis-
incidence angles. Kheyari and Dalui (2015) have conferred similarity in temperature offers rise to the gradients of
the results of a case study to estimate wind load on a tall pressure which set air in motion.
building under interference effects. They used a CFD 1. Logarithmic law:
simulation tool to create a ‘virtual’ wind tunnel to predict Vz 1 z
the wind characteristics and wind response. ¼ log ; ð1Þ
V  k e z0
where k is the Von Karman’s constant = 0.40, z the height
Mean wind speed profiles above the ground, z0 the surface roughness parameter, V*
qffiffiffi
the friction viscosity = sq0 , s0 the skin frictional force on
Wind velocity is thought to be zero at ground, and per-
the wall and q the density of air.
sistently intensifying the mean wind speed with height can
2. Power law:
be presented by two models: to be specific, logarithmic law
 a
and power law. At some height, the air movement is V z
thought to be free from the Earth’s frictional resistance. ¼ ; ð2Þ
V0 z0

Fig. 7 Variation of wind pressure on different surfaces of the building for a wind incidence angle of 0°

123
324 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335

where, V is the velocity at height z above the ground, V0 the physical wind tunnel, which together enables us to solve
wind speed at reference height, z0 the reference height complex wind flow problems. CFD is a versatile and
above the ground, generally 10 m, and a the exponent powerful tool that can be used to solve problems related
power law, varying for different terrains. to pedestrian-level wind comfort, cladding pressures on
Among these two, the power law is widely used by buildings, etc.
researchers as it is quite easy to adjust match with mean There are several methods in CFD to foresee the
wind velocity profile. wind flow and their effects. Here, ANSYS CFX, AN-
SYS 14.5. ANSYS. Inc. software will be used with k–e
turbulence modeling, so that decent resemblance is
maintained between the experimental and numerical
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques. Gradient diffusion hypothesis is used in the
k–e model to relate the Reynolds stresses to the mean
Computational fluid dynamics is a computer simulation velocity gradients and turbulence viscosity. ‘k’ is the
tool that creates a ‘virtual’ wind tunnel to envisage the turbulence kinetic energy defined as the variance of
motion of fluids around objects. By virtue of advance- fluctuations in velocity and ‘e’ is the turbulence eddies
ments in high speed computing and parallel processing, dissipation (the rate at which the velocity fluctuation
the CFD technique is a powerful augmentation of the dissipates).

Fig. 8 Variation of wind pressure on different surfaces of the building for a wind incidence angle of 15°

123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335 325

Domain size shall be suitably chosen, so that vortex will considerably reduce the time of analysis without sig-
generation, velocity fluctuations, etc. in the wake region nificant loss of accuracy.
are effectively conformed. Revuz et al. (2012) suggested
that inlet, outlet, two side face and top clearances of the
domain be 5H, 15H, 5H and 5H, respectively, from the Validation of CFD
edges of the buildings, where ‘H’ is the height of the
building. The domain is shown in Fig. 1. A combination of Validation of the CFD package has been done by ana-
tetrahedron meshing and hexagonal meshing shall be lyzing a square building model using ANSYS CFX.
considered for meshing the domain and the surface of the From the available information of I.S: 875 (Part-3)
building model. Finer hexagonal meshing around and on (1987) for a simple square building of particular aspect
the surfaces of the building is obtained by providing ratio (h/w = 5), the pressure coefficients can be evalu-
inflation, which leads to simulate uniform flow and mea- ated from the respective tables. Thereafter, numerical
sure the actual behavior of the responses accurately. Uni- analysis was conducted in the ANSYS CFX software for
form coarser tetrahedron meshing in the rest of the domain a similar building model under comparable wind

Fig. 9 Variation of wind pressure on different surfaces of the building for a wind incidence angle of 30°

123
326 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335

environment to obtain these coefficients on different sidewalls the deviation is 7.7 and 14.3 % with respect to
faces of the building. This evaluation obviously can be AS-NZS 1170-2:2002 and ASCE 7-10, respectively. But
done on the basis of any other international standard of for the leeward face, the result from ANSYS deviates by
wind load. 20 % with respect to both the codes. This deviation in
Table 1 shows the comparison of the external pressure result is perhaps due to the generation of unsteady vortices
coefficient Cpe between different standards of various in the wake region near the leeward face.
countries and Cpe calculated by ANSYS CFX for a square
building. The results of the numerical analysis resembles
the provisions of the code AS-NZS 1170-2:2002, Aus- Parametric model of the study
tralian/New Zealand Standard, ‘‘Structural design actions,
part 2: wind actions’’ and ASCE Standard (ASCE/SEI The present study will be carried out to understand the
7-10) ‘‘Minimum design loads for buildings and other behavior of pressure distribution on the various surfaces of
structures’’, with good agreement. For the windward face, a ‘Z’ plan-shaped building with varying wind directions.
there is 0 % deviation in the result, whereas for the The building has clear dimensions of each limb with

Fig. 10 Variation of wind pressure on different surfaces of the building for a wind incidence angle of 60°

123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335 327

100 mm length and 50 mm width (Fig. 2). The limbs are discussed earlier. Different faces are named for reference
orthogonal to each other. The height of the building is as shown in Fig. 5. The directions of the wind considered
considered as 500 mm. The plan area of the building is are indicated also in the same figure.
22,500 mm2 consequently. The rigid model length scale is
considered as 1:300. The isometric view of the model is
shown in Fig. 3. The domain and meshing used are as External force and pressure coefficients
discussed in the preceding section. The mesh pattern for the building
around the building is shown in Fig. 4.
Force coefficients (Cf) along the X and Y direction are
determined using the formula Cf = F/(P 9 A), where ‘F’
Results and discussion is the total force exported from numerical simulation in the
desired direction corresponding to the wind angle, ‘P’ is
The numerical study of the model as stated before has been the wind pressure and ‘A’ is the surface area exposed to the
done by the k–e turbulence model using ANSYS CFX. The wind. Wind incidence angle 0°–150° with an interval of
domain, meshing and flow pattern are considered as 30° is considered. An additional wind angle 15° is also

Fig. 11 Variation of wind pressure on different surfaces of the building for a wind incidence angle of 90°

123
328 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335

considered. The coefficients are presented in Table 2. The suction pressure at the leeward faces due to frictional flow
force coefficient along the X direction is maximum for a separation and vortex generation.
15° wind angle and the same along Y is maximum for a 60° The wind flow pattern around the building for different
wind angle of attack. A negative sign indicates suction. The wind incidence angles is shown in Fig. 6. Flow separation
wind pressure obtained by the computational method using characteristics and vortices are quite evident from the flow
the ANSYS CFX is used to calculate the external pressure patterns. The variations of wind pressure on different sur-
coefficient ‘Cpe’ using the formula Cpe ¼ P=ð0:6Vz2 Þ, faces of the building for wind angles 0°, 15°, 30°, 60°, 90°,
where Vz is the design wind speed and ‘P’ is the wind 120° and 150° are shown in Figs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13,
pressure. The external surface pressure coefficients, Cpe respectively. Referring to Fig. 14a–g, it is quite clear that
(face average value), for different faces of the building are the Face A, Face B and Face C being the windward faces
listed in Table 3. Positive pressure coefficients occur at the for wind incidence angle 0° are subjected to positive
windward faces because of direct wind dissipation and pressure, of which Face A has the lowest face average Cpe

Fig. 12 Variation of wind pressure on different surfaces of the building for a wind incidence angle of 120°

123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335 329

Fig. 13 Variation of wind pressure on different surfaces of the building for a wind incidence angle of 150°

because of the uplift force and backwash. Face D, Face E, 30° wind angle, are now changed to suction pressure. All
Face F, Face G and Face H are exposed to suction pressure. the faces, except Face H, are subjected to negative pressure
Again, positive pressure occurs at Face A, Face B and Face now. In case of 90° wind angle, the pressure at Face F is
C for 15° wind angle of attack. But in this case, Face A has positive for some height and then decreases to negative. At
the maximum Cpe at a certain height and also maximum greater height, it touches positive pressure again and ulti-
face average Cpe among faces having positive pressure mately suction at the top. This results in small face average
because of reduced backwash effect. Other faces are sub- Cpe of 0.06 for Face F. The pressure is positive for Face H
jected to suction pressure again. The nature of variation of and there is suction pressure for the rest of the faces. When
Cpe along the height of the building can be seen from the the wind angle of attack is 120°, Face F, Face G and Face
graph and face average values are available in Table 3. For H become windward faces and are subjected to positive
30° wind angle, there is positive pressure on Face B up to a pressure, while the other faces are exposed to suction
certain height and then it suffers suction pressure. Face A is pressure. The maximum positive pressure occurs at Face F
purely under positive pressure. The variation of Cpe for and the maximum negative pressure at Face E. For wind
Face H is almost linear. The pressure is positive, but of angle 150°, there is an interesting scenario of overlapping
very low (face average Cpe is 0.06) magnitude. When the pressure variations along the height for Face F and Face G.
wind incidence angle is increased to 60°, Face A, Face B The pressure variation is positive for both the faces and the
and Face C, which are exposed to positive pressure up to face average Cpe is almost same consequently. The

123
330 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335

Fig. 14 Variation of pressure

coefficients along the vertical
centerline on different faces for
various wind angles

deviation of pressure is wide for Face E. There is non- The variation of wind pressure along the horizontal
uniform variation of suction pressure up to a certain height centerline of all the faces of the building for wind angles
for this face and thereafter the pressure becomes positive. 0°, 15°, 30°, 60°, 90°, 120° and 150° are shown in Figs. 15,
The other faces are under more or less uniform negative 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 respectively. Three different
pressures. heights of the building are considered to take into account

123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335 331

Fig. 14 continued

the variation along the height as well. The ordinate of the plotted. These plots support understanding the overall
graph is the external pressure coefficient (Cpe) of each face scenario, i.e., the response of all the faces of the building
and along the abscissa the perimeter of the building is under a particular wind incidence angle. For 15° wind

123
332 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335

Fig. 15 Comparison of
pressure coefficients along the
horizontal line through various
faces at three different heights
of the building for 0° wind angle

Fig. 16 Comparison of
pressure coefficients along the
horizontal line through various
faces at three different heights
of the building for 15° wind
angle

Fig. 17 Comparison of
pressure coefficients along the
horizontal line through various
faces at three different heights
of the building for 30° wind
angle

123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335 333

Fig. 18 Comparison of
pressure coefficients along the
horizontal line through various
faces at three different heights
of the building for 60° wind
angle

Fig. 19 Comparison of
pressure coefficients along the
horizontal line through various
faces at three different heights
of the building for 90° wind
angle

Fig. 20 Comparison of
pressure coefficients along the
horizontal line through various
faces at three different heights
of the building for 120° wind
angle

123
334 Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335

Fig. 21 Comparison of
pressure coefficients along the
horizontal line through various
faces at three different heights
of the building for 150° wind
angle

angle, even though Cpe is positive for Face A, Face B and Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Face C, there is a sudden fall in Cpe at Face B for the height Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://crea
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
of 470 mm. It touches suction pressure and then rapidly distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
becomes positive again. This may be a result of uplift force appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
at a greater height of the building. For 30°, the nature of link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
variation is more or less similar. The Cpe values changes made.
with height only. From the plots, the backwash effects at
the lower portion of the building and uplift at greater height
References
are quite clear.
Amin JA, Ahuja AK (2013) Effects of side ratio on wind-induced
pressure distribution on rectangular buildings. Hindawi Pub-
lishing Corporation, J Struct 2013 (Article ID 176739, 12
Conclusion pages)
Bhatnagar NK, Gupta PK, Ahuja AK (2012) Wind pressure distri-
Provisions of the codes are usually available for orthog- bution on low–rise building with saw-tooth roof. In: IV National
onal wind directions only. But the results of the study Conference on Wind Engineering
Bhattacharyya B, Dalui SK, Ahuja AK (2014) Wind induced pressure
clearly indicate that for tall buildings, a deeper perception
on ‘E’ plan shaped tall buildings. Jordon J Civil Eng
of the phenomenon of wind structure interface is needed 8(2):120–134
for more precise information. For that, model analysis is Chakraborty S, Dalui SK, Ahuja AK (2014) Wind load on irregular
inevitable. The force coefficient (Cf) along the X direction plan shaped tall building—a case study. Wind Struct
18(6):59–73
has a maximum value of 1.02 for 15° wind angle and the
Fu JY, Li QS, Wu JR, Xiao YQ, Song LL (2008) Field measurements
same along Y is extreme for the 60° wind angle of attack of boundary layer wind characteristics and wind-induced
with a value of Cf equal to 1.24. Quite obviously, the responses of super-tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind
windward faces are subjected to positive pressure coeffi- Aerodyn 96(8–9):1332–1358
Gomes M, Rodrigues A, Mendes P (2005) Experimental and
cients because of the undeviating wind force. Because of
numerical study of wind pressures on irregular-plan shapes.
frictional flow separation and generation of vortices, the J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 93:741–756
leeward faces are exposed to suction. Flow separation Irwin A (2007) Bluff body aerodynamics in wind engineering. J Wind
characteristics and vortices are quite apparent from the Eng Ind Aerodyn 96(6–7):701–712
Irwin A (2009) Wind engineering challenges of the new generation of
streamlines. The pressure force on the windward side and
super-tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 97(7–8):328–334
suction force on the leeward side in combination produce I.S: 875 (Part-3) (1987) Code of practice for the design loads (other
vortices in the wake region, causing the deflection of the than earthquake) for buildings and structures (part-3, wind
body. There may be occurrence of suction even on the loads). Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
Kareem A (1986) The effect of Aerodynamic interference on the
windward faces because of the separation of flow in
dynamic response of prismatic structures. J Wind Eng Ind
structures with limbs and also due to uplift, sidewash and Aerodyn 25(1987):365–372
backwash of wind.

123
Int J Adv Struct Eng (2016) 8:319–335 335

Kheyari P, Dalui SK (2015) Estimation of wind load on a tall building Raj R, Ahuja AK (2013) Wind loads on cross shape tall buildings.
under interference effects: a case study. Jordon J Civil Eng J Acad Ind Res (JAIR) 2(2):111
9(1):84–101 Revuz J, Hargreaves DM, Owen JS (2012) On the domain size for the
Kushal T, Ahuja AK, Chakrabarti A (2013) An experimental steady-state CFD modelling of a tall building. Wind Struct
investigation of wind pressure developed in tall buildings for 15(4):313–329
different plan shape. Int J Innov Res Studies 1(12):605–614 Tominaga Y, Stathopoulos T (2012) CFD modelling of pollution
Lam KM, Zhao JG (2006) Interference effects of wind loads on a row dispersion in building array: evaluation of turbulent scalar flux
of tall buildings. In: The Fourth International Symposium on modelling in RANS model using LES results. J Wind Eng Ind
Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2006), Yokohama Aerodyn 104–106(2012):484–491
Liang S, Li QS, Lui S, Zhang L, Gu M (2004) Torsional dynamic Tse KT, Hitchcock PA, Kwok KCS, Thepmongkorn S, Chan CM
wind loads on rectangular tall buildings. Eng Struct (2009) Economic perspectives of aerodynamic treatments of
26(2004):129–137 square tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 97(9):455–467
Lin N, Letchford C, Tamura Y, Liang B (2004) Characteristics of Verma SK, Ahuja AK, Pandey AD (2013) Effects of wind incidence
wind forces acting on tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind angle on wind pressure distribution on square pan tall buildings.
Aerodyn 93(3):217–242 J Acad Ind Res 1(12):747–752
Muehleisen RT, Patrizi S (2013) A new parametric equations for the Zhang A, Gu M (2008) Wind tunnel tests and numerical simulations
wind pressure coefficient for low-rise buildings. Energy Build of wind pressures on buildings in staggered arrangement. J Wind
57(2013):245–249 Eng Ind Aerodyn 96(2008):2067–2079

123