4.5 Article

Wind loads characteristics of irregular shaped high-rise buildings

Journal

ADVANCES IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 3-16

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/13694332221120700

Keywords

high-rise buildings; irregular shape; wind tunnel testing; base moment; local wind force

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the wind load characteristics of different irregularly shaped high-rise buildings through wind tunnel tests. The effects of U-shape, H-shape, X-shape, and T-shape on wind loads were analyzed. The results showed that the U-shape and H-shape had negligible effects on wind loads, while the X-shape and T-shape models had significant differences compared to the benchmark model.
Many irregular shaped high-rise buildings have been built for graceful demand of architecture or better amenity and ventilation in the world. In this study, a benchmark rectangular high-rise building model and six high-rise building models with various irregular shapes, including two T-shaped, two U-shaped, H-shaped and X-shaped, are tested in a boundary wind tunnel to investigate their wind loads characteristics. The coefficients, power spectral density and cross-correlation of base moments as well as local wind forces are analyzed and discussed in details. Based on the wind tunnel test results, it is founded that the effect of U-shape and H-shape on wind loads is negligible. The along-wind mean base moment coefficient of X-shaped model is increased by 10.0% in 90 degrees wind direction. The wind force characteristics of T-shaped models are quite different from the benchmark model in many cases. The mean base moment coefficient of T-shaped 2 model is reduced by 18.6% in 0 degrees wind direction. Larger mean lift forces and torques of T-shaped models are appeared and there is a certain correlation between along-wind and across-wind local wind forces in 90 degrees wind direction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available