2018
DOI: 10.1007/s42107-018-0018-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of aerodynamic coefficients of setback tall buildings due to wind load

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…ANSYS Fluent software was used to create a computational domain around the 3-D geometry of the building. Different dimensions for the computational domain have been used depending on the scale of the model and conditions [46][47][48]. Figure 3 shows the benckmark model inside the computational domain.…”
Section: Computational Domain Set-upmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…ANSYS Fluent software was used to create a computational domain around the 3-D geometry of the building. Different dimensions for the computational domain have been used depending on the scale of the model and conditions [46][47][48]. Figure 3 shows the benckmark model inside the computational domain.…”
Section: Computational Domain Set-upmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 3 shows the benckmark model inside the computational domain. Recommended dimensions by Bairagi and Dalui [48] were used in the current study. The distance from the inlet to the tested model was five times the building's height.…”
Section: Computational Domain Set-upmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, Bairagi and Dalui [14] investigated the effect of building configuration for wind distribution on square and setback building forms, and the setback form developed an excessive suction pressure at the top of the roof in comparison to the square model. Another study by the same authors [15] investigated the impact of single-side and both-side setback, where the latter was noticed to be more susceptible to wind motions. Large openings and through-building gaps were also considered among major modification options due to its effectiveness in reducing across-wind excitation as a result of the organized or narrow-band vortex-shedding process [16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because building shapes plays critical role in deriving its aerodynamic characters, modification of tall building forms proved to be effective in mitigating wind-induced loads on tall buildings (Xie, 2014;Elshaer et al, 2017). Several studies investigated different aerodynamic modifications on tall buildings including major modifications such as tapering, twisting and setback (Kim and You, 2002;Kim et al, 2008;Xie, 2014;Bairagi and Dalui, 2018) that have a significant impact architecturally and structurally on building design, or minor modifications such as corner configuration (Zhengwei et al, 2012;Li et al, 2018;Thordal et al, 2020;Mandal et al, 2021), where it has little to no effect on the intent design, yet still shows an effective results in reducing wind responses. While Kim and You (Kim and You, 2002) and Xie (Xie, 2014) found that tapering is more effective in mitigating across-wind responses, Xie (Xie, 2014) further explored twisting shape modification demonstrating that it has and extra advantage of equalizing winds distribution and responses along wind directions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%