Wind interference effects on local loads on high rise buildings in a

tandem arrangement
Alexander J. Bronkhorst 1,2, Chris P.W. Geurts1,2, Carine A. van Bentum1
1
TNO, Delft, the Netherlands, okke.bronkhorst@tno.nl
2
Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Architecture, Building and Planning,
Eindhoven, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT
Most of the information used for codification of the local wind loads on buildings is based on
model tests on isolated structures. The effects of the immediate surroundings which can be quite
significant are rarely considered in any detail. To obtain a better understanding of the influence of
wind interference on local loads, a wind tunnel study was performed on a series of two building
configurations. The current paper presents some of the results of this experimental study; it
discusses the local wind loads on a high-rise building in the presence of a building with similar
dimensions at three locations in tandem arrangement at 0 degree wind angle. Initial results show
significant effects on local loads on all building faces for both the mean as well as the fluctuating
pressure distribution. In specific locations, e.g. on the front of both sides of the building, significant
adverse effects were encountered in local loads, even in cases for which the influence on the
overall loads is insignificant or even favorable.

1 INTRODUCTION
The increasing use of light-weight materials makes the building envelope more vulnerable to the
adverse effects of the wind. Augmented wind loads, e.g. due to turbulence created by upstream
obstacles, will raise the risk of façade element failure. The current standards used for designing
building elements fail to effectively incorporate the local effects of adjacent buildings and
structures. For example, changing the position of one high-rise building relative to another building
can make a huge difference on the wind load, but will not make any difference on the roughness
value used by the design codes, and consequently not on the wind loading used for design.
Specifically the effects on local wind loads can be very large; Stathopoulos [6] measured wind load
amplifications well above 200% on a low rise building in the presence of a nearby tall building.
A large amount of research has been performed on the effects of wind interference on the overall
loads on a building [3] [4] [5]. Various parameters were investigated in these studies: the size and
shape of the buildings, the arrangement of the buildings, the wind direction and velocity, and the
type of approach terrain. According to Khanduri [4] the location and proximity of the buildings are
especially of great influence. The tandem arrangement for two buildings with similar dimensions is
probably the simplest and best documented case of interference effects on the overall loads [3] [4]
[5]. All these studies describe a reduction in the mean and peak drag force for both the
downstream, as well as the upstream building.
Location and proximity are also of great importance when considering local loads. Work performed
by Stathopoulos [6] on the influence of a high-rise building on a low rise building focused on both
these parameters. He concluded that the position of the major building is the dominant parameter
for the loading pattern of the low building; the largest adverse effects on the low-building loading
were produced when the major structure was placed next to the low building. The buffeting effects
Stathopoulos measured, deteriorated with the distance from the nearby structure; in the side-by-side
arrangement, it took approximately one tall building width for the roof suctions to reach similar
levels as in the isolated case.
A research project has been set up, to obtain more insight in the influence of the change in flow
behavior on the local loads on interfering buildings. Both wind tunnel and CFD work are planned
in this ongoing research. In this paper three positions of the tandem arrangement have been
investigated and a comparison with previous studies for the overall loads is made. It discusses the
effects of the configurations on the local pressures.
2 WIND TUNNEL EXPERIMENT
The experiments have been carried out in the open circuit atmospheric boundary layer wind tunnel
of TNO Built Environment and Geosciences in the Netherlands, which has a working section of
approximately 13.5 m in length, 3 m in width and 2 m in height. The boundary layer used in this
study was developed over the length of the test section using 50 mm cubic roughness elements, and
6 spires located at the beginning of the test section, resulting in a full scale roughness length of
z0 = 0.8 m. The roughness elements extended onto the turn table, to prevent the development of an
internal boundary layer. A hot wire anemometer was used to measure both wind speed and
turbulence intensity characteristics of the boundary layer flow. The wind speed in the wind tunnel
at model roof height was Uref = 14.2 m/s. At this location the turbulence intensity was 11.5% in
longitudinal direction, 10% in transverse direction and 8.5% in vertical direction. The wind tunnel
profiles of the mean wind speed and turbulence intensity, representative for an urban exposure, are
provided in figure 1, the values for the wind speed are non-dimensionalised by the reference
velocity at building height.
2 2
Umeas Iu,meas
1.8 z = 0.8m, d = 4.5m
0
1.8 I
v,meas
Iw,meas
1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2
z/href [-]

z/href [-]

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
U(z)/Uref [-] Iu,Iv,Iw [%]

Figure 1 Experimental inflow profiles for mean velocity (left) and turbulence intensities (I u, Iv, Iw)
The wind pressures have been studied on a square cylinder with a height of 48 cm and depth and
width of 12 cm. The interfering building has the same dimensions. A geometrical scale of 1:250 is
applied, so the full scale building has a 120 meter height. The three configurations analysed here
are illustrated in figure 2. The interfering building was positioned at S = 0.5b, S = 3b and S = 5b.
The reference building was instrumented with pressure taps at 86 locations that were sampled
simultaneously: 38 pressure taps on the front and rear face and 10 pressure taps on the top face (as
illustrated in figure 3). After one measurement run the model was rotated 90 degrees and a second
run was performed for the same building configuration, thus obtaining pressures on all faces of the
reference building.
The fluctuating pressures acting at a 1.1 mm diameter pressure taps were measured with a sampling
rate of 400 Hz. The run length was approximately 20.5 seconds. The distortion of the measured
pressures due to the tube length has been corrected for. The corrected pressures were converted to
pressure coefficients, defined as follows,

p 
Cp  , C p  1 p 2
1
2 U ref
2
2 U ref

where p is the measured mean pressure at tapping referenced to free stream static pressure,  p the
standard deviation or RMS pressure, ρ the air density and Uref the mean wind speed at reference
height.
 S = 0.5b S = 3b S = 5b
Figure 2 Illustrations of the measured building configurations, S is the spacing between the buildings,
b is the width of the buildings.
o o o o o o o
42.5 mm o o 10 mm
o o o o
12.5 mm
o o o o o o o 77.5 mm o
22.5 mm

o o o o o 30mm
o o o o o o o 80 mm

o
22.5 mm
o o o o o o o 80 mm
o o o o 12.5 mm
o o 10 mm

o o o o o o o 80 mm

o o o o o o o 120 mm

10 mm 22.5 mm 22.5 mm 10 mm
12.5mm 30 mm 12.5 mm

Figure 3 Illustration of the pressure tap distributions and applied tributary areas on the front and top
face of the reference building, the other faces had the same tap distributions as the front face.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As a first assessment, overall forces have been compared to earlier work. The discrete method of
tributary areas has been applied; figure 3 illustrates the pressure taps and related areas on the faces
of the model. A comparison of the overall loads with previous studies [3] [4] demonstrated a good
match.
This paragraph discusses the results obtained per building face for a 0o wind direction at a pressure
tap height of 320 mm. Figure 4 illustrates the local mean and RMS pressure coefficients over the
circumference of the model for the undisturbed situation and three tandem configurations.
The front face of the model (region A-B) shows an increase in mean pressure distribution with
increasing separation distance. The relation between separation distance and mean pressure
distribution on the front face is comparable to the relationship between total mean drag force and
separation distance described in [3] and [4], which indicates that for a tandem arrangement the
change in drag force is mostly dictated by the influence on the front face. The insignificant change
in mean pressure distribution on the rear face (region C-D) with separation distance supports this
observation.
In the undisturbed case the maximum RMS pressure coefficient is found in the middle of the front
face and reduces towards the sides. This reduction in fluctuations is related to the influence of the
building induced recirculation zone. According to Bottema [1] the frontal vortex causes an increase
in the turbulence intensity.
 1 0.4
x/b = 0
x/b = 1.5
0.5 x/b = 3 0.3
x/b = 6
0 0.2

-0.5 0.1

-1 0
A B C D E A B C D E
Cp,mean Cp,rms
Figure 4 Circumference plots of the mean and RMS pressure coefficients at a model height of 320 mm.
It is likely
2 that this increase is most pronounced in the middle1 of the model. In the disturbed cases
there is a significant reduction in RMSx/bvalue
= 0 in the middle of the front face, which recovers x/b for
=0
increasing
1.5 x/b = 1.5shedding from
separation distance. The vortices x/b = 1.5
0 the upstream building are the most
probable cause for the large increase inx/bRMS=3 x/b = 3
coefficients near the corners of the front face.
x/b = 6
1 side faces of the model (regions B-C and D-E) there -1 is a significant reduction in thex/b = 6
On the mean
pressures due to the upstream model. With increasing separation distance the pressure distribution
0.5
transforms -2
towards the undisturbed situation, this transformation is most pronounced at the front.
The RMS pressure distribution over the side in the undisturbed situation shows a peak near the
0 -3
leeward edge of the model. A similar phenomenon is described by Surry and Djakovich [7] and
Cheung [2]. They suggest that intermittent reattachment may be occurring, causing large peaks
-0.5 -4
near the A leewardB edge. TheC introduction
D of anEupstream building
A eliminates
B these
C peaks Dand E
introduces a peak near the windward edge. The increased turbulence intensity in the oncoming flow
due to the upstream model shortens the separation bubble length and intensifies the recirculating
flow in the separation bubble. This results in earlier reattachment and large RMS pressure
coefficients inside the separation bubble.

4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
An exploratory experiment has been presented. It aimed to provide a clearer understanding of the
influence of separation distance on the local pressures on the downstream building in a two
building tandem arrangement. Various effects in both the mean and fluctuating pressure
distribution on all faces of the model were uncovered and to some extent explained. Only one wind
direction was analyzed for four configurations. This paper has provided a small view on the
broadness and complexity of the wind interference problem.

5 REFERENCES
[1] Bottema M. (1993). Wind Climate and Urban Geometry. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University
of Technology.
[2] Cheung J.C.K. (1984). “Effect of tall building edge configurations on local surface wind
pressures”, Proc. 3rd Int. Conference on Tall buildings, Hong Kong.
[3] English E.C. (1993), “Shielding Factors for Paired Rectangulars Prisms : An analysis of
along-wind mean response data from several sources”, Proc. of the 7th US National
Conference on Wind Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 193-201.
[4] Khanduri A.C. (1997). Wind-induced interference effects on buildings: integrating
experimental and computerized approaches. PhD thesis, Concordia University.
[5] Saunders, J.W. and Melbourne, W.H. (1979). “Buffeting effects of upwind buildings”,
Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Wind Engng, Fort Collins, CO, pp 593-605.
[6] Stathopoulos, T. (1984). “Adverse wind loads on low buildings due to buffeting”, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1984, 110 (10), 2374-2392.
[7] Surry D., Djakovich D. (1995), “Fluctuating pressures on models on tall buildings”,
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 58, 81-112.