Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia

Analysis of interference effects on torsional moment between two MARK

high-rise buildings based on pressure and flow field measurement
⁎
Yi Huia, , Yukio Tamurab, Qingshan Yangc
a
Key Laboratory for Wind and Bridge Engineering of Hunan Province, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Yuelu, Changsha, Hunan 410082,
China
b
Beijing's Key Laboratory of Structural Wind Engineering and Urban Wind Environment, School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing
100044, China
c
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Wind induced interference effects between high-rise buildings have become quite important in structural
Interference effect engineering in modern cities recently due to the close proximity of high-rise buildings. In this study, the wind
High-rise building induced interference effects on the torsional load on two adjacent high-rise buildings are studied through wind
Wind tunnel test tunnel experiment. Two different sectional shapes of high-rise buildings are studied and four kinds of
Torsion
arrangements are investigated. Existing interference factors are adopted to quantitatively evaluate the
Flow field
interference effects. Results show that the mean torsion on a building when under interfered conditions can
be tripled that for the isolated case. Although the interference effect on the fluctuating torsion is not as strong as
on the mean torsion, the interference factor can be as large as 1.6. The extreme torsion under interference
effects is also higher at 1.8 times that of the isolated case. With the help of pressure measurement on the
principal building and the flow field information around the buildings, the underlying mechanisms of some
typical cases which exhibit strong interference effects are discussed. Results show that the intricate flow field
around the principal building with the presence of an interfering building is the main case of the large torsion it
experiences.

1. Introduction
A lot of high-rise buildings have been constructed in close proximity
in modern cities. The wind induced interference effects on the
dynamics of the buildings have become more and more prominent.
Since the flow pattern surrounding the buildings might be significantly
different from that for the isolated building, the wind loadings acting
on the buildings may be greatly changed or enhanced with possibly no
reference to the overall or local wind load (Xie and Gu, 2007; Lam
et al., 2008; Zhao and Lam, 2008; Kim et al., 2011; Hui et al., 2012,
2013a). Some researchers also investigated the interference effects on
the dynamic response of high-rise building (Bailey and Kwok, 1985;
Huang et al., 2017)
Wind induced interference effects on torsion of a building in a
group need carefully attention, and many studies have shown that the
torsion of high-rise buildings cannot be neglected as in an isolated
building. Blessmann and Riera (1985) reported the strong interference
effects on torsional moment. Based on the research made by
Blessmann (1992), the Brazilian wind load code(1988) (NBR-6123)
suggested that the torsional moment on a building should account for
the unfavorable influence of the surroundings in urban area. Studies
have also been made on the torsional response of high-rise building
under interference effects. Zhang et al., (1994, 1995) found that the
mean and standard deviation of torsional responses of a asymmetric
principal building could be significantly enhanced due to the presence
of the interfering building. They claimed that the enhancement is due
to the vortex shedding from the interfering building resonating at the
natural frequency of the building submerged in the wake. Recently, Yu
et al. (2016) studied the interference effects between two square-
section buildings with different breadth ratios and height ratios. They
found that the torsional response under interference effects can reach
up to 2.98 times of the isolated condition.
It has been shown that the torsion of a building with the presence of
an adjacent building is quite critical. Studies on the interference effects
on wind induced torsion are necessary for both the design of high-rise
buildings in group and for understanding the mechanism of this
torsion enhancement due to wind load. In this study, wind tunnel
experiment was carried out for this purpose with pressure measure-

⁎
Correspondence to: College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Yuelu, Changsha, Hunan 410082, China.
E-mail address: alihui@hnu.edu.cn (Y. Hui).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2017.02.008
Received 29 July 2016; Received in revised form 30 January 2017; Accepted 6 February 2017
Available online 12 February 2017
0167-6105/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Hui et al.
Fig. 1. Characteristics of longitudinal wind in experiment.
280mm
280mm
70mm 210mm
(a) Principal building models
Fig. 2. Building models for pressure measurement.
ment on the building models. Two types of building shapes in four
different arrangements are studied in the experiment.
Since the mechanisms interference effects can be better described
with the help of flow field pattern (Taniike, 1992; Hui et al., 2013b), the
flow field surrounding the buildings is also examined quantitatively in
this study by means of Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) experiment.
The mechanisms and underlying physics of the interference effects on
torsion are discussed in detail with the above results.
2. Experimental setup
2.1. Pressure measurement
The boundary layer wind tunnel for the laboratory studies is located in
Tokyo Polytechnic University. The test section is 2.2 m wide and 1.8 m
high. A power law exponent of 0.27 is fitted for the approaching mean wind
speed to represent an urban wind exposure. The mean wind speed and the
turbulence intensity at the roof height of the model (0.28 m) were 8 m/s
and 17%, respectively. The longitudinal mean wind velocity profile,
55
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68
280mm
280mm
70mm 210mm
(b) Interfering building models
turbulence intensity profile, and power spectrum of wind speed at roof
height are shown in Fig. 1. The length scale and velocity scale were set at
1:400 and 1/5, respectively. The integral length scale of this experiment is
about 0.56 m at the model eight, which means it corresponds to a 224 m
integral length scale in full scale at 112 m high above the ground. This value
is a reasonable simulation based on the full scale measurement in large city
(Hui et al., 2017). Therefore, the length scale in this experiment is
reasonable. This means the target mean wind speed was 40 m/s at roof
height in full scale. Pressures on the building models were recorded with a
sampling frequency of 781 Hz.
Two kinds of building shapes with the same height of 280 mm were
studied. The first one was a 70 mm×70 mm square-section model and the
second one was a 210 mm×70 mm rectangular-section model. They are
shown in Fig. 2. Four different experimental arrangements were designed
for the wind tunnel test, and they are named as A-1 to A-4 hereafter for
convenience. Fig. 3 shows the arrangements. A-1 and A-2 were used to test
the interference effects between two buildings with different shapes. A-3
and A-4 were used to investigate the interference effects between the
rectangular-section buildings but with different relative orientations. The
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

Fig. 3. Experimental arrangements.

principal building located at the origin of the coordinate grid and the
interfering building was placed at grid points as shown in the figure. The
incident wind direction was varied from 0° to 360° at increments of 5° in
every configuration of the experiment. All the principal buildings are
equipped with pressure taps for wind load measurement.

2.2. Flow field measurement

The flow fields from pressure measurement results of several typical

Fig. 4. Photo of PIV test.
configurations are discussed below. The PIV test was carried out in the
wind tunnel of Beijing Jiaotong University, China. The test section is 1.2 m
wide and 1.5 m high. Because there is a limitation on the range for
capturing the flow field area, smaller models were prepared for the PIV test.
And a length scale of 1:900 was adopted. The square-section model was
0.03 m×0.03 m and the rectangular-section model was 0.03 m×0.09 m. All
the models are rigid and they are 0.12 m high. Since the aim of this study is
to investigate the flow field due to interference effects, the turbulent
incoming flow is not simulated in this experiment, and the test was carried
out in uniform flow. The incident mean wind speed at three-quarter height
of model was checked to be 8 m/s.
The PIV system consists of a high-speed digital video camera

56
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

Y/b
8
7
1.1
6
1.2 Y/b
5 5
1

1.2
4 1 4
1.1

1.4
1.4
1
3 1 .6 3
1
1.2 .4 1.8
1.2

1.21.4
1.4

1.6

1.
2 2.5 2.22 2

2
1
1 1.8
1.6

1
2.2 1

.16.
1.2
1 1

28
1.6 1.2.4
1
X/b 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 X/b 6 5 4 3 2

(a) A-1 (b) A-2

Y/b
7
Y/b
1.4 6
6
1.5
1.2
1

1.4.2
1.6
5 5

1
8 1 1.6
1 1 . 1 1.8
4 4

2
2

2.2
1.2 2.2
3 1.4 2.8 32.4 3
2.4

2.5 1.2 .2
1.4
1.2
2 1 2
1.5
1.4
1.4 1 1
1.2
1
X/b 7 6 5 4 3 2 X/b 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

(c) A-3 (d) A-4

Fig. 5. Contour of MIF of different arrangements.

(Memrecam-HX, maximum frame rate: 3600 frame/s, effective pixels: building. ρ is the air density, UH is the mean incident wind speed at the
1024×1024), and 2000 frame/s was used to capture the images. 2000 height of the building roof. B and H are the width and height of the
frames of images are grouped into 1000 consecutive pairs, and each pair building.
were used to calculate one flow field information. A double pulse Nd: YAG The interference factors of mean and fluctuating torsions are named
laser (LDP-100MQG, average power consumption 220VAC ± 10%, 20A/ as "MIF" and "DIF". They are defined as
single phase) with 15 mJ in laser pulse, a laser pulse synchronizer and a
max ( Ct (θ ) )with interfering building
particle generator (PivPar40, oil mist, particle diameter: 1 µm) were also θ ∈[0,2π ]
MIF = ,
used. The sampling duration for each case in the test was 9.9 s. Fig. 4 shows max ( Ct (θ ) )without interfering building
the PIV test with the laser coming from the top of the experimental setup. θ ∈[0,2π ] (3)
Shadow can be found beneath the testing model. The measured data in the ∼
max (Ct (θ ))with interfering building
shadow region shown in this study are therefore not as good as those in θ ∈[0,2π ]
DIF = ∼ ,
other parts of the test. max (Ct (θ ))without interfering building
θ ∈[0,2π ] (4)
3. Interference factor ∼
where Ct (θ ) and Ct (θ ) are the mean and fluctuating torsion coefficients
on the principal building with an incident wind direction θ. The
3.1. Mean and standard deviation of torsion coefficients ∼
max ( Ct (θ ) ) and max (Ct (θ )) of the isolated square-section building
θ ∈[0,2π ] θ ∈[0,2π ]
are 0.076 and 0.062 respectively from experiment. Similarly, the
The commonly used interference factors are adopted to quantitatively ∼
∼ max ( Ct (θ ) ) and max (Ct (θ )) of the isolated rectangular-section
evaluate the interference effects. The mean Ct and Standard Deviation Ct of θ ∈[0,2π ] θ ∈[0,2π ]
torsion coefficients on the principal building are written as building are also checked to be 0.051 and 0.042 respectively.
The interference factors are calculated for each configuration of the
Mt
Ct = four arrangements, and they are shown in contours in Figs. 5 and 6.
0.5ρU H2 B2H (1) The maximum MIF exceeds 3.2 in arrangement A-4 indicating very
jt significant interference effects on the mean torsion of the building. The
∼ M
Ct = interference effects on the torsion of the square-section building are
0.5ρU H2 B2H (2)
relatively weak compared with the other three arrangements, yet the
jt are the mean and fluctuating (STD) torsions acting on
where Mt and M maximum MIF is high and greater than 1.8. These results indicate that

57
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

Y/b
8

1
1
7

1
6
Y/b

1
5 5

1.5 1.4 1.3

1

1.2
4 4

1.1
1
3

1.6
3

1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2 2 2

9
0.
1
1.1

1
01.
1

X/b 7
9
6 5 4 3 2 1 X/b 6 5 4 3 2

(a) A-1 (b) A-2

Y/b
1.3 7
Y/b
1.1
1

6 6
1

1.1
1.2

1.1
1.
2

5 5
1 1.2
1.3 1 .3

1.2
1 4 4
0.9

1.2

1.1
3 1

1.4
3
1 .1
1 1.2

1 1.1 1
1.2 2 1.2 1
.3 2
1

1 1.2

1.1
1 1

1
1

1
X/b 7 6 5 4 3 2 X/b 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

(c) A-3 (d) A-4

Fig. 6. Contour of DIF of different arrangements.

the aspect ratio of the principal building may have strong influence on
the interference effects on torsion.
In arrangements A-2, A-3, and A-4, the interfering building locates in
front of the wide face of the principal building. The interference effects on
torsion are usually stronger than the cases when it is in front of the short
face of the principal building. As it can be seen in Fig. 5(b)–(d) that the
maximum MIF when interfering building is in the front wide facade of
principle building are all over 2.5 for the three arrangements, while in case
the interfering building is in the front short facade of principle building, the
maximum MIF are just about 1.4. The maximum MIF values are noted
from Fig. 5 and they occur when the two buildings are in very close vicinity,
i.e. when the net distance between the two buildings is smaller than b (b is
the depth of the building). The interference effects gradually attenuate with
an increase of distance between the two buildings according to the MIF
results in Fig. 5.
The Maximum DIF values shown in Fig. 6 are noted smaller than 2.0,
which are much smaller than the MIF values. The maximum DIF for
arrangement A-1 is 1.2 which is the smallest amongst the four arrange-
ments. There is only a small region with the DIF greater than 1.1. These
show that the dynamic interference effects on torsion are not significant for
square-section principal building. In the other three arrangements,
although some large values are observed in oblique configurations, the
maximum values are noted occurring when the interfering building is
located along the Y-axis. This means the tandem configurations may results
in the strongest interference effects on the fluctuating torsion of the
principal building. A comparison of the figures in Fig. 6 shows that a
bigger interference building does not imply stronger interference effects on
the fluctuating torsion of the adjacent principal building. A smaller building
can, however, induce very strong interference effects on a big building when
it is located in an unfavorable region.
According to Fig. 6(d), when the two rectangular buildings are
perpendicularly arranged with the wide facade of the interfering building
facing the short facade of the principal building, the DIF is around 1.0.
When the short facade of the interfering building is facing the wide facade
of the principal building, the DIF can be greater than 1.4 but not as large as
the maximum DIF from case A-2.
3.2. Extreme torsion coefficients
The interference effects on the extreme torsion coefficients are
studied below to provide some useful information for the design of
high-rise buildings. The extreme torsion coefficient is estimated base
on the classical method proposed by Cook and Mayne (1980). Fifteen
samples, each corresponds to 10 min time sample in full scale, are
analyzed. The extreme torsion coefficient associated with a 50-year
return period is estimated using Eq. (5):
Cˆ t = Ct + 1.4/ ac (5)
where Ct and 1/ ac are the location and scale parameters of the extreme
pressure coefficient. The extreme torsion in clockwise Cˆ t , c (θ ) and anti-
clockwise Cˆ t , ac (θ ) directions for each wind incident angle are estimated
according to Eq. (5), and the extreme torsion coefficient is defined as
Cˆ t (θ ) = max( Cˆ t , c (θ ) , Cˆ t , ac (θ ) ).
The interference effects on the extreme torsion coefficient are

58
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

Y/b
8
7

1 .1
1.1
1
6
Y/b

1.2
1.1 5 5

1
4 4

1.2
1 .1
1
1.2
3

1.41 .3
3

1.1

1
1 1.1

1 .4
1.4 2 1.2

2
1 .6 1.5 2

1.
1.7
1.2

1 .3
1.2
1.4 1 1
1.1 1 .1
1
X/b 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 X/b 6 5 4 3 2

(a) A-1 (b) A-2

Y/b
7
Y/b
2
1

1.

6 6
1.1

1.1
3

5 5
1.

1.4 1.3
1 1 .1
1 .5 1.2
4 4

1.4
1.1
1.2

1.6
1.5
1.6

3 3
1.1 1.2

1.7 1.8
1.7 1.
9

1 .3
2 2

1
1
1.
1 1 1

1
1.1
1
X/b 7 6 5 4 3 2 X/b 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

(c) A-3 (d) A-4

Fig. 7. Contour of EIF of different arrangements.

for the isolated condition. It is also found that the most adverse
0.15 condition occurs under the configuration when the two buildings are in
very close vicinity, i.e. the net distance between the two buildings is
0.1 smaller than b. This observation is similar to that for MIF. Comparing
Figs. 5 and 7, it can be noted that the contours of MIF and EIF show
0.05 strong similarity in shape, which means the mean torsion may have a
dominating influence on the extreme torsion. However, this does not
Ct 0 mean the fluctuating torsion does not require detailed investigation, as
the fluctuating force is usually the main cause for structural damage.
-0.05
The interference effects on mean and fluctuating torsions will be
Isolated studied with the flow field information in the following section.
-0.1 (4b,2b)
(1.5b, 1.5b) 4. Investigation of MIF under typical configurations
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
o
Wind direction ( ) Some typical configurations are selected for detailed study with the
MIF results shown in Fig. 5 with the aim to investigate the underlying
Fig. 8. Ct on square-section building varies with wind direction.
mechanism of the interference effects.

4.1. Square-section principal building

examined via the following:
max (Cˆ t (θ ))with interfering building
θ ∈[0,2π ]
EIF =
max (Cˆ t (θ ))without interfering building
θ ∈[0,2π ]
Fig. 7 shows results of the EIF of the four configurations. It is noted
that the maximum EIF of the four configurations are all around 1.8
except A-1. This indicates that the extreme torsion under interference
effects with the most unfavorable conditions will be about twice of that
The coefficients Ct (θ ) of configurations (4b, 2b) and (1.5b, 1.5b) in A-1
are plotted in Fig. 8 with comparison to those from the isolated case. The
. maximum Ct (θ ) of configuration A-1 (4b, 2b) occurs at the wind direction
(6) of 20°. Fig. 9 compares the mean pressure coefficients (Cp ) distribution on
the principal building for the cases with and without interfering building
under the most unfavorable conditions. The definition of Cp is given as:
qp
Cp = ,
0.5ρU H2 (7)

59
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

Facade-A Facade-B Facade-A Facade-B principal building and it is split into three components. The lower part
changes direction sharply and passes through the gap between the

0.60.5
0.7

-0.2
-0.2

-0.6
buildings resulting in the negative pressure on part of the windward

0.8
0.8

-0.4
face of the principal building. The middle part directly attacks the
0.7 0.6

principal building causing high positive pressure on the windward face.

-0.4 These analysis are supported by the pressure distribution on Facade-A

-0.8
0.4

0.4
0.7

0.6
shown in Fig. 9(d). The upper part passes beside the Facade-D of the
-0.6

principal building with high speed. However, according to the flow field
0.5

-1
data, since no well-formed suction bubble can be observed at the
leading edge of Facade-D in this case, the mean negative pressure on
0.6

0.7
Facade-D should not be high, as evidenced by results from Fig. 9(d).
0.5
-0.2

-0.6
-0.2

-0.4
0.5
0.2

0.6
0.2

4.2. Rectangular-section principal building

0.5
-0.4

It can be checked from Fig. 5 that two types of configurations may cause

-0.8
0.4
0.4

high MIF for rectangular-section building. One has the interfering building
in front of Facade-A and very close to the principal building ((b,1.5b) in A-2
and (2b,1.5b) in A-3). The MIF of these configurations is relatively large
(a) Isolated θ=20° (b) (4b,2b) θ=20° which can be greater than 2.0. The other type has the interfering building
Facade-D Facade-A relatively far from the principal building ((4b,b) in A-3 and (4b, 3b) in A-4).
Facade-D Facade-A
The MIFs of these configurations are not as large as the other type and is
0

0.4

0.40.6
-0.2
-0.2

0.2

usually lower than 1.5.

0.7
0

The Ct (θ ) of rectangular building of the first type is firstly examined,

0.6

as shown in Fig. 11. The interfering building of all the three cases are
located in front of the wide facade of the principal building (not in
0.8

0.5
-0.2

0.8
-0.4

tandem arrangements), leaving a narrow gap between the two build-

0.5

ings. It can be seen that there are three wind directions under which
strong mean torsion on the principal buildings can be observed, i.e.
0.2
0.7

0.7
-0.6

−35°(10°), 145°, and 270°.

Fig. 12(b) shows the Cp distribution on the principal building when
the interfering building is located at (b, 1.5b) in A-2, with θ=−35°.
-0.2
0.4

-0.2

0.2
0.4
0.6

0.6

Fig. 12(a) shows the Cp distribution on the principal building under

isolated condition, with θ=−35°. Only distribution on the facades that
are significantly affected by the interfering building are shown. The
0.5
0.5
-0.2

pressure distribution from Fig. 12(b) and the flow pattern in Fig. 12(a)
-0 .4

(c) Isolated θ=335° (d) (1.5b,1.5b) θ=335°
Fig. 9. Cp of the most unfavorable conditions.
where qp is the measured mean pressure. Only readings from the two
facades that are significantly affected by the attacking wind are shown in
the figure.
According to Fig. 9(a) and (b), the major differences between the cases
with and without interfering building are on Facade-B, the side faces of the
building. The mean flow field is studied to try to find an explanation to this
observation, and it is shown in Fig. 10(a) and (b). Wind approaches from
the left side of the figure (wind comes from this direction for all cases in the
PIV study). One can see that the well-formed high speed shear layer flow
separated from the upwind interfering building enhances the shear layer
flow on the side of Facade-B of the principal building. This enhanced flow
causes higher negative pressure on Facade-B of principal building,
especially near the leading edge. The well-formed high speed shear layer
flow separated from the upwind building also enhances asymmetrically the
distributed positive pressure on the windward face of the downstream
building as shown in Fig. 9(b). All these effects amplifies the Ct of the
principal building.
Fig. 9(c) and (d) show another case of high Ct on the principal
building (A-1 (1.5b, 1.5b), θ=335°). The mean wind pressure on the
principal building is also changed due to the upwind building as shown
in Fig. 10(c) and (d). The principal building is very close to the
interfering building in the downwind direction. Thus, the separated
shear layer wind from the upwind building is severely affected by the
and (b) show that the mechanism on the occurrence of high torsion for
this case is quite similar to the case (1.5b, 1.5b) in A-1 with θ=335°.
The partially positive and partially negative pressure distributed on the
windward face of the principal building is the main reason of the high
torsion occurrence. The negative pressure is believed to be induced by
the high speed flow passing through the gap between the two buildings.
Fig. 12(c) and (d) compare the Cp distribution of the cases with and
without interfering building ((2b, 1.5b) in A-4), with θ=145°. Although
the Cp distribution on Facade-B and C change a little from that with the
isolated condition, large difference between the two cases are noted on
Facade-A. According to Fig. 12(c), when under the isolated condition,
Facade-A is at the leeward side and it is merged in the wake flow of the
principal building with almost uniform distribution of Cp over it.
However, when the interfering building is located in front of Facade-
A, the high speed flow can pass through the narrow space in between
the two buildings as shown in Fig. 13(c) and (d), resulting in the high
negative pressure on Facade-A especially at the leading edge as shown
in Fig. 12(d) leading to strong torsion of building.
The last wind direction causing strong torsion is θ=270°. The config-
uration (b, 2.5b) in A-3 is selected for the study. The Cp distribution of the
cases with and without interfering building are shown in Fig. 12(e) and (f).
When θ=270°, the Ct should be zero as shown in Figs. 11 and 12(e) because
of the symmetry of pressure distribution on the principal building.
However, the symmetry of pressure distribution is destroyed with the
presence of interfering building. The Cp distribution on Facades-A and C
are significantly changed. According to Fig. 13(e) and (f), when the
interfering building is placed in front of Facade-A within close proximity
of the principal building, the separated shear layer flow, which can be
observed under isolated condition (Fig. 13(g)), is now suppressed and the
flow is pointing towards Facade-A causing positive mean pressure on the
upstream part of it as shown in Fig. 12(f). The channeling effect can be

60
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

8
7

7
65
4

7
1
7 0

2
3

1
0

2
6
5
8

4
9 7
4 8

67
8

123
0 2
0

7
6
5
1

5
4

3
2
0

2
4

4
0

(a) Mean speed A-1 (4b,2b) θ=20° (b) Mean streamlines A-1 (4b,2b) θ=20°
9

9
9

768
9

5
34
8

2
8 1
7

62 0
0
435

7
0

8
0

0
0
0 0

1
4
1

5 2
0

1
0
0
0

2
4
0

2
0
0

1
00
34

2
3
4

(c) mean speed A-1 (1.5b,1.5b) θ=335° (d) mean streamlines A-1 (1.5b,1.5b) θ=335°
Fig. 10. Mean flow field of typical unfavorable configurations.

also well-formed at the leading edge. These phenomena explain why the
0.2
Isolated negative Cp become higher than that when in the isolated condition. The
A-2, (b, 1.5b) changes of Cp on Facades-A and C result in the strong mean torsional
0.15
A-3, (2b, 1.5b) moment on the principal building.
A-4, (b, 2.5b) The second type of configurations that induces high MIF is also
0.1 examined, as shown in Fig. 14. High torsion of all three cases can be
observed when the interfering building is located in the upstream direction
0.05
Ct of the principal building (θ∈(30°, 120°)). When θ is not in this range, the
interference effects on torsion can hardly note from Ct . By checking the Cp
0 distribution on the principal building and the configuration of buildings, it
is found that the large MIF of this type of configurations is due to the shear
0.05 layer flow separated from the upstream interfering building, which
enhances the shear layer flow separated from the downstream principal
-0.1 building. Such phenomenon is similar to the results for A-1 (Figs. 9(b) and
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
o 10(a) and (b)) discussed earlier in this report. Flow pattern of similar
Wind direction ( )
configuration can be found in Hui et al. (2013a, 2013b) which may serve as
Fig. 11. Ct varies with wind direction when interfering building is close. references.

identified because of the high speed flow between the buildings and the 5. Investigation of DIF under typical configurations
negative pressure at the downstream part of Facade-A. The mean speed of
shear layer flow separated from the leading edge of Facade-C of the According to Fig. 6, the maximum DIFs all appear in the tandem
∼
principal building can be higher than 10 m/s, and large suction bubble is configurations except A-1. The Ct (θ ) and Ct (θ ) of some typical configura-
∼
tions are plotted as shown in Fig. 15. The high Ct (θ ) of all three cases are

61
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

Facade-D Facade-A Facade-D Facade-A

0.6

0.1

-0.2
0.8
0

-0.6
0.8
0
0.6

02

-0.4

-0.6
02

0.4

0.4
0.2

-0.2
0.2
0.8

0
-0.4
0

-0.2

0.6
0.6
0.6

-0.6
-0.2
-0.4
-0.2

0.4
0.4

0.4
0.2

-0.02
0.2
-0

0
. -0
2 . 4

(a) Isolated θ=325° (b) A-2 (b, 1.5b) θ=325°

Facade-A Facade-B 0.4 Facade-C

0.6
-0.1
0.2

0.2
0.3

00.1
-0.1
0.4
0.2 0.3

0.5
0 0.1

0.7

-0.6
0.1

0.6
-0.1

0.2
0.3

0.1

0.5
0.4

-0.1
-0.4

0.
5

(c) Isolated θ=145°

Facade-A Facade-B Facade-C
0.1 0.2
00.4.2

0.3
02
-0.1
-0.4

0.4
-1

0.6
-0.6

0.4
-0.8

0
-1
-0.4

0.1
0.3

0.2
0.7

0.3
0.4

-0 21
-0.
0.6
-0.4

0.2
--0-0.6.4
0 .8

0
-1

0.3

0.1

(d) A-3 (2b, 1.5b) θ=145°

Fig. 12. Cp of the unfavorable conditions.

62
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

Facade-C Facade-D Facade-A

-0.2
0.6

-0.6
-0.4
0.8
0.8 0.6
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
-0.8

-0.8

0.4

-0.2
0.4

0.6

-0.6

-0.4
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2

0.2
(e) Isolated θ=270°
Facade-C Facade-D Facade-A

-0.6
0.8

0.2
-0.6
0.6 0.20.4

-1
0
.4

0.4

-0.4
-0.2
-0.8

0.8
-1

-0.8
-1

0.2
.
2

0.4
-0.6

-0.6
0.2
0.6
00.2
-0.8

0.4

-0.2
-0.4
0.4
-1

(f) A-4 (b, 2.5b) θ=270°

Fig. 12. (continued)

noted when θ is around 0°, and Ct (0°) are all close to zero because of the
symmetric configurations.
∼
The fluctuating local pressure coefficient Cp is studied and defined as:
∼ q∼p
Cp = ,
0.5ρU H2
∼
where q∼p is the STD of the measured local pressure. The Cp and Cp
distributions of the principal building are investigated to try to find the
∼ ∼
reason on these high Ct values. Fig. 16 compares the Cp and Cp on the
windward wall of the isolated case with case (0, 3b) in A-2, when θ=0°.
The shielding effect provided by the interfering building can be noted
from Fig. 16(b) where the Cp on the windward wall of the principal
building is greatly reduced especially in the center region. At the same
∼
time, the Cp on the principal building are enlarged compared with those
from the isolated condition. That means additional turbulence is
introduced by the interfering building. Ct (0°) = 0 under the interfered
condition can be easily explained because the Cp is symmetrically
∼
distributed. However, the reason of the high Ct cannot be explained
from Fig. 16.
More detailed investigations are also carried out by examining the
correlation coefficients of all measured pressures at different positions
on Facade-A, as shown in Fig. 17. The pressure measured near the edge
of the windward face is selected as the reference point. For the isolated
condition, all the pressures on the windward wall are positively
correlated. However, when an interfering building is present in the
upstream direction, the wind loads acting the two sides of the wind-
(8) ward wall become negatively correlated.
The power spectrum density (PSD) of torsional load acting on
different faces are further studied as shown in Fig. 18. The peaks of the
three PSD functions coincide at the same reduced frequency at around
0.12. This indicates that the flow attacking the windward face of the
principal building mainly consists of vortex introduced from the
upstream building. Fig. 19(a) is the averaged flow field when the wind
speed at the selected point is over 0 m/s (flow to the right is positive),
and Fig. 19(b) is the averaged flow field when the wind speed at the
selected point is below 0 m/s. This plots clearly show that the vortices
generated from the two sides of the upstream building attack two sides
of the windward wall of the downstream building alternately resulting
in the negatively correlated wind loads on the two sides of windward
face of the principal building as shown in Fig. 17. Such negative
correlated wind loads will surely cause large fluctuating torsion on the
principal building.
Another case that can induce high DIF is the configuration (0, 3b)

63
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

9 86
7 45

7
2
3
6 8 482

1
5
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
3
3 2
0
1

0
0

1
4
5

6 543
2
6 1
4

7 2
6

3
4
5
76
4
3

78
8
7

(a) Mean wind speed A-2 (b, 1.5b) θ=325° (b) mean streamlines A-2 (b, 1.5b) θ=325°
1
0

1
0

0
0
3

0
0

56 1
3
4 0

0 0
0
1 2

0
01

43
65
0

1
0
2

0
2 1
0

5 6
4

0
5

0
3
4

2
3

4
6

3
4
564

6
3

7 5
5
6

4
4

5
4
5

(c) Mean wind speed A-3 (2b, 1.5b) θ=145° (d) mean streamlines A-3 (2b, 1.5b) θ=145°
Fig. 13. Mean flow field of typical unfavorable configuration.

∼
in A-4 with θ=110°. The fluctuating torsion coefficients (Ct ) of Facade-
A and Facade-C are examined and compared with those for the isolated
condition as shown in Table 1. It can be seen that there is not big
difference between the isolated and interfered cases. However, the
∼
overall Ct shows quite a large difference. The correlation of the torsion
induced by the wind load acting on two faces are, thus, examined to
∼
find the reason on the high Ct under the interfered condition. Fig. 20
∼
depicts the trajectories of Ct on Facade-A and -C under different
conditions. When the principal building is isolated, slightly negative
correlation can be observed between the torsion acting on the two wide
faces. This means the torsion acting on the two sides of building cancel
out each other slightly, resulting in a smaller overall torsional moment.
However, when under the interfered condition, the torsion acting on
the two faces exhibit strong positive correlation instead causing the
∼
overall Ct much larger than the isolated conditions. The magnitudes of
torsion on the two sides are, however, almost the same as those in the
isolated condition.
6. Conclusions
The interference effects on torsion between two high-rise buildings are
investigated through wind tunnel experiment. Four different arrangements
including 204 configurations are examined. The wind pressure on the
principal building are recorded with wind direction from 0° to 360° for each
configuration. The interference effects on the mean, fluctuating and
extreme torsions are examined by means of MIF, DIF, and EIF. The flow
field of typical configurations are examined by means of PIV test.
The MIF and DIF are firstly investigated. It is found that the mean
torsion under interfered conditions can be three times as large as that
for the isolated condition. The interference effects on fluctuating
torsional moment are weaker than the mean torsional moment, and
the maximum DIF is about 1.6. Such results indicate that the torsional
moment of high-rise building under interfering condition needs to be
carefully addressed by engineers. Results of EIF show that the extreme
torsion of a building under interference effects can be as large as 1.8
times that of the isolated case.
With the help of information on the mean pressure coefficients
distributed on the building and the flow field information, the reason of
having high MIF is discussed. Two types of configurations are found to
cause high MIF. The first one has two buildings relatively far away with
the interfering building located at the upwind direction. In this case,
the high MIF is basically due to the attack of the high speed shear layer
flow separated from the upstream building. This shear layer flow is
enhanced because of the high speed flow separated from the upstream
interfering building. The second type has two buildings in close
proximity. In this case, the high MIF is induced by the intricate flow
pattern surrounding the buildings, especially the high speed channeling
flow in between the narrow space of two buildings.
The mechanisms of having a high DIF are also discussed and studied.
For most of cases, the high DIFs appear in the tandem configurations.
Under these configurations, strong fluctuating torsional moment can be
observed when the wind comes from 0°. By checking the correlation
coefficients of the torsion on the four faces of the principal building, the

64
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

9
109
5 8 7 6 345
8 7

2
C0 2 6 C
1 B
1 0
2B 6
A 1 A
0 365
0
3 2 45
1

74
6 798 3
2

1 45
4
4

3 1
3

0 0
2

2
5

00
1
3

(e) Mean wind speed A-4 (b, 2.5b) θ=270° (f) mean streamlines A-4 (b, 2.5b) θ=270°

(g) mean streamlines isolated θ=270°

Fig. 13. (continued)

0.1

0.05

Ct 0

-0.05 Isolated
A-2 (4b,b)
A-3 (5b,b)
A-4 (4b,3b)
-0.1
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
o
Wind direction ( )
Fig. 14. Ct varies with wind direction when interfering building is relatively far.

power spectra of torsion on different walls and flow pattern, it is found
that the strong fluctuation is caused due to the vortex shedding
generated from the upstream building, which attack the two sides of
the windward wall of the downstream building alternately. When the
rectangular-section interfering building is located at (0, 3b), and two
buildings are perpendicular, the maximum fluctuating torsion appears at
110°. By comparing the related wind loads under isolated and interfered
conditions, it is found that the torsion on the two wide faces has strong
correlation providing evidences for occurrences of high fluctuating
torsion on the principal building.

65
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

0.1 0.08
Isolated
A-2, (0, 3b)
0.05 A-3, (0, 5b)
0.06
A-4, (0, 3b)

0
~
Ct Ct 0.04
-0.05

Isolated 0.02
-0.1 A-2, (0, 3b)
A-3, (0, 5b)
A-4, (0, 3b)
-0.15 0
0 45 90 135 180 0 45 90 135 180
Wind direction ( o) Wind direction (o)
~
(a) Ct (θ ) (b) Ct (θ )
Fig. 15. Mean and fluctuating torsion coefficients vary with wind direction.

Facade-A Facade-A
0.5 0
0.4

0.
0.4

0.1

0.3
7 0.3
0.6

0.8

0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.2

0.5

0.2
0.3

0.7

0.2

0.2
0.5 0.4

0.3
0.1

0.4
0.1
0.1 0.2

0.6
0.2
0.3
0

0
0.0.2

0.5

0.2
3

00.1
0.6

(a) C p of isolated (b) C p of A-2 (0,3b)

Facade-A Facade-A
0.4
0.4
0.3

0.5
0.3

0.3
0.5

0.3
0.2

0.4
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.2

0.2

0.3

~ ~
(c) C p of isolated (d) C p of A-2 (0,3b)
∼
Fig. 16. Comparison of Cp and Cp between isolated and interfered conditions with θ=0°.

66
Y. Hui et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68

Facade-A Facade-A

0.6

0.4

-0.2
0.2
0
0.8

0
0.2
0.4

0.6

-0 .4
0.8
Reference Reference
point point

0.6

0.4
0.2
-0 .2
0
0.2

0
0.4
0.4

(a) Isolated (b) Interfered (0,3b)

Fig. 17. Correlation coefficients of all measurement point with the marked point.

Fig. 18. PSD of torsion acting on different facades.

A A

(a) Marked position higher than 0m/s (b) Marked position lower than 0m/s
Fig. 19. Averaged flow field under different conditions.

67
Y. Hui et al.
Table 1
∼
Comparison of Ct on the wide faces of rectangular-section building.
Facade-A
Interfered 0.12
Isolated 0.09
Fig. 20. Correlograms between torsions acting on two wide walls under different conditions.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (51408207). The support is also given by the Key laboratory of
bridge wind resistant and new technology of Hunan province (15K028)
and the 111 project (B13002). The work by Prof. S.S. Law in polishing
the English of the paper is also acknowledged.
References
Bailey, P.A., Kwok, K.C.S., 1985. Interference excitation of twin tall buildings. J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 21, 323–338.
Blessmann, J., 1992. Neighbouring wind effects on two tall buildings. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 41–44, 1041–1052.
Blessmann, J., Riera, J.D., 1985. Wind excitation of neighbouring tall buildings. J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 18, 91–103.
Brazilian Wind Code, 1988. NBR-6123, Wind Forces on Buildings. Associacao Brasileira
de Normas Tecnicas, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).
Cook, N.J., Mayne, J.R., 1980. A refined working approach to the assessment of wind
loads for equivalent static design. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 6, 125–137.
Huang, D., Zhu, L., Ding, Q., Zhu, X., Chen, W., 2017. Aeroelastic and aerodynamic
interference effects on a high-rise building. J. Fluids Struct. 69, 355–381.
Hui, Y., Tamura, Y., Yoshida, A., 2012. Mutual interference effects between two high-rise
building models with different shapes on local peak pressure coefficients. J. Wind
68
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 164 (2017) 54–68
Facade-C Overall
0.13 0.21
0.12 0.12
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 104–106, 98–108.
Hui, Y., Yoshida, A., Tamura, Y., 2013a. Interference effects between two rectangular-
section high-rise buildings on local peak pressure coefficients. J. Fluids Struct. 37,
120–133.
Hui, Y., Tamura, Y., Yoshida, A., Kikuchi, H., 2013b. Pressure and flow field investigation
of interference effects on external pressures between high-rise buildings. J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 115, 150–161.
Hui, Y., Li, B., Kawai, H., Yang, Q.S., 2017. Non-stationary and non-Gaussian
characteristics of wind speeds. Wind Struct. 24 (1), 59–78.
Kim, W., Tamura, Y., Yoshida, A., 2011. Interference effects on local peak pressures
between two buildings. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 99, 584–600.
Lam, K.M., Leung, M.Y.H., Zhao, J.G., 2008. Interference effects on wind loading of a
row of closely spaced tall buildings. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 96, 562–583.
Taniike, Y., 1992. Interference mechanism for enhanced wind forces on neighboring tall
buildings. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 31, 41–66.
Xie, Z.N., Gu, M., 2007. Simplified formulas for evaluation of wind-induced interference
effects among three tall buildings. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 95, 31–52.
Yu, X.F., Xie, Z.N., Wang, X., Cai, B., 2016. Interference effects between two high-rise
buildings on wind-induced torsion. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 159, 123–133.
Zhang, W.J., Kwok, K.C.S., Xu, Y.L., 1994. Aeroelastic torsional behaviour of tall
buildings in wakes. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 51, 229–248.
Zhang, W.J., Xu, Y.L., Kwok, K.C.S., 1995. Interference effects on aeroelastic torsional
response of structurally asymmetric tall buildings. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 51,
41–61.
Zhao, J.G., Lam, K.M., 2008. Interference effects in a group of tall buildings closely
arranged in an L- or T-shaped pattern. Wind Struct. 11, 1–18.