Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Mitigation of wind load on tall buildings through

aerodynamic modifications: Review

Ashutosh Sharma, Hemant Mittal, Ajay Gairola

www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

PII: S2352-7102(17)30556-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.03.005
Reference: JOBE427
To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering
Received date: 28 September 2017
Revised date: 16 March 2018
Accepted date: 17 March 2018
Cite this article as: Ashutosh Sharma, Hemant Mittal and Ajay Gairola,
Mitigation of wind load on tall buildings through aerodynamic modifications:
R e v i e w , Journal of Building Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.03.005
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Mitigation of wind load on tall buildings through aerodynamic modifications: Review

Ashutosh Sharma*1, Hemant Mittal1a, and, Ajay Gairola2b

1
Centre of Excellence in Disaster Mitigation and Management, Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, India

*
Corresponding Author: Ashutosh Sharma. Centre of Excellence in Disaster Mitigation and
Management, Indian institute of Technology Roorkee,Roorkee-247667,India. Tel.: +91-9045961691.
E-mail: ashukridha@gmail.com

Abstract

With the advancement in construction and engineering techniques, a pragmatic shift in architectural
designs of tall buildings can be observed. The buildings are going taller and unconventional shaped
rather than traditional. Generally shape and orientation of the building are determined on the basis of
architectural and practical considerations, but the wind-induced excitations encouraged by bluffness
of the building shapes cannot be neglected also. To safeguard the functional requirement of tall
flexible buildings and to mitigate the excitations, various methods are available. Among these
methods, aerodynamic modification techniques are very potent, which affect the mechanism of vortex
shedding phenomenon considerably and have got a lot of attention in recent years. Based on the
impact of modification on the outer architecture of the building, the aerodynamic modifications are
categorized in two groups i.e. minor modifications (corner cut, rounding, chamfer etc.) and major
modifications (taper, set-back, twist etc.). The present study comprehensively reviews the recent/past
aerodynamic modification techniques applied to high-rise buildings.

Keywords: Wind Load; Aerodynamic modification; Mitigation; Response; Taper Ratio

1. Introduction

Increasing demand for business and residential space, economic growth, innovation in
structural systems has led to the scope of vertical expansion of the buildings thus occupying the less
precious area and in the coming decades, maximum cities of developed and developing countries
would be seen with the more cohesive skyline. Fig. 1 shows some of the tall buildings which are top
10 tallest buildings in the world [1].

1
 Fig. 1. World’s top 10 highest buildings

In past decades, shapes of the tall buildings were traditional and symmetrical having square,
rectangular, triangular, circular etc. cross-sections (e.g. 432 Park Avenue (New York), World Trade
Centre (New York)), these shapes were less associative with torsional-vibrations by seismic loads due
to eccentricity [2]. The progressive social, economic development and advancement of new
engineering and construction techniques, high-grade materials, steel, welded connections and light
facades (do not impart in the strength of structure) motivating architects and engineers to construct
peculiar light, tall buildings to display their spirit, inventiveness and design concept. On the contrary,
these advancements in heights are generally accompanied by increased flexibility, slenderness, lack of
sufficient damping and low natural frequency [3,4]. As the wind-load increases with height, it raises
the concern of wind-induced dynamic response and these are more expected to be in the range of wind
gust. Moreover vortex shedding also plays an important role, whose frequency may reach close to the
natural frequency of structure and may lead to the vibrations in structures which may be troublesome
as serviceability and survivability issues are concerned [5–7].

It is well established that shape of the structure plays a significant role in resistance against
wind-induced load and response of the structure in either direction. The bluff structures are more
prone to excessive wind loads. Earlier records of such studies can be found in the studies by Lee [8],
Irwin [9], Nakamura [10]. The rectangular cross section structures are more vulnerable to the lateral
response unlike triangular, elliptical, cylindrical shapes; these shapes offer greater structural
efficiency. Although wind load depends on the outer geometry of the building, the wind load for the
tall buildings cannot be generalized due to wide variability in shapes and surroundings for a building
which can be unique for every case [11]. So in early design stage scrutinizing of building design
modification to mitigate the wind load and to deal with the serviceability issues recommended.

Nowadays, even if the safety of the structure can be confirmed by the use of advanced
structural systems and high grade materials, still the vibrations caused by the wind gustiness can reach
beyond the human comfort zone and may be a point of concern for fatigue life of building, excessive

2
noise and cracks [12]. The dynamic motion of the building depends on factors such as flow
characteristics of wind, building surrounding, shape, and height, structural properties of the building
(i.e. stiffness, damping, mass distribution, mode shape etc.) and dynamic motion of building is
consists of static or sustained and the oscillatory motion. The Later parameter is considered to be
significant since this motion is perceived by the occupants and can cause discomfort or nuisance to
the occupants [13]. Therefore, the area of wind load and response reduction have always been a
critical, interesting and explorable area among researchers and continuously gaining the attention.

The very recent review on the aerodynamic modification for mitigation of wind-induced loads
is given by Moonegi et.al. [14]. In this study, modification approaches for low-rise and high-rise
buildings were presented in brief and the study is largely focused on optimization methods. In other
review studies in past decades ([3,6]), some aspects of the aerodynamic modifications have not been
covered in detail. Moreover, since year 2010, Yukio Tamura group and some other authors have
dedicated a lot of research in field of aerodynamic modifications and have investigated almost all the
practically possible shapes, these records have not been considered so far. The present study
comprehensively reviews the recent/past work on wind resistant design modification techniques for
tall buildings to mitigate wind-induced loads.

2. Wind induced Forces and responses

“The whole question of vibration in buildings from the effect of variable wind pressures is
complicated by the indeterminate nature of the pressures themselves as well as by the great variation
in size, shape, weight, height, and location of buildings.” -Davenport [7]

A structure against wind flow experiences loads in along-wind, across-wind and torsional
direction, correspondingly there are excitations in three directions (Fig. 2(a)). As the height of
building increases wind load on curtain walls and sensitivity may become pronounced with increasing
speed [15–17]. Excitation of the building can be suppressed either by countering the source of
generation of unsteadiness (for instance the outer geometry of the building can change the
organization of vortex formation) or by handling the response with some external means (addition of
structural elements).

2.1. Along wind response

Along-wind excitation is primarily caused by the pressure fluctuations on windward and

leeward faces of the building [3,18–20] and in general, it is followed by the oncoming wind
fluctuations. In a majority of the international codes along wind response obtained by ‘Gust factor
approach’. Although along wind building loading dynamics can be dealt with gust factor approach,
the across-wind and torsional loading do not manifest any straight relation with the fluctuations in the
approaching flow, and are dealt with different practices adopted by variously available codes and
standards [21,22].

2.2. Across wind / Transverse Response

The most common source of across wind excitation is the vortex shedding. Unlike the
streamlined bodies, the tall buildings are bluff against the flow and cause the flow to separate, rather
than following body contours. At low wind speeds, the vortices shed from the sides of the building in

3
a symmetrical manner and there is no unbalanced force in the lateral direction, at comparatively high
wind speeds the vortex shedding becomes unsteady and vortices shed alternatively from both the sides
of the building (Fig. 2(b)). The alternate vortex shedding distributes pressure asymmetrically on the
lateral or side faces of building and give rise to periodic transverse force [18,20–23], subsequently,
flexible structures start oscillating in the transverse direction.

(b)
(a)

Fig. 2. (a) Force Directions (b) Periodic vortex shedding

The vortices have a dominant frequency of shedding and is represented by a nondimensional number
i.e. Strouhal Number (St), this number is highly dependent on the shape of the structure:

St=fB/U (1)

Here ‘f’ is the frequency of vortex shedding, ‘U’ is the wind speed and ‘B' is the width of the building
across the wind flow direction. The frequency of vortex shedding ‘f’ when coincides with one of the
natural frequency of building; resonance condition prevails, which consequently amplifies the
transverse motion of the structure. The St value for different shapes typically varies in the range of
0.1-0.3, almost 0.14 for a square cross section and approx. 0.2 for circular sections [9,12,17].

f=fr

Uc= fr x B/St

The critical velocity (Fig. 3(a)) at which resonance starts, if can be shifted to higher velocity with the
help of increasing the building frequency by increasing stiffness, oscillations can be controlled but if
this increase is high, it may not be tenable as far as economic point of view is concerned.

Previously a number of researchers have identified that across wind dynamic response may
exceed the along wind response [4,9,18,21,23–27] and motion in the transverse direction can be a
severe issue not only for the structural fatigue but also for serviceability design. As shown in Fig.
3(b), unlike along wind force spectrum, across-wind spectrum shows a peak. The peak appears due to
the vortex shedding which imparts the RMS (root mean square) value for transverse direction larger
than the along wind. Holmes J.D. [28], Irwin [9,12] reported that the responses of Jin Mao building
showed almost 1.2 times higher response in across-wind direction than along-wind direction.
Although vortex shedding is the main driving mechanism which affects the cross wind motion, the
buffeting phenomenon which is driven by the turbulence from the upstream building is also
responsible and may harness the excitations [17].

4
 (a)
(b)

Fig. 3. (a) Peak response due to vortex shedding [17] (b) Comparison of along-wind and across-wind force
spectra [5]

2.3. Torsional Response

Torsional response emerges due to the imbalance in pressure fluctuations on the surfaces and
so the force imbalance on the building. The torsional dynamic response of a building becomes
significant if the center of mass does not coincide with the center of reaction forces/ Centre of
stiffness/ center of rigidity. This situation may arise due to the geometric shape of the structure,
geometrical eccentricity or the uneven load pattern from the dynamic wind.

3. Motion Perception/Serviceability criteria

Buildings motion and criteria of human comfort is complex due to the variability in level of
perception, comfortability of habitats against vibrations and apart from this what should be the return
period and which criteria should quantify that can best epitomize the comfort; whether it is
acceleration, velocity, noises combined with motion, or jerk [6,29,30]. A large section of the group
has agreed to adopt acceleration as the defining parameter for occupant comfort level [26,31].
Nevertheless, the international community has not converged to this decision. At present most of the
studies are being done adopting peak and root mean square value of acceleration for governing the
comfort threshold [6,30].

Wind induced serviceability concern can be viewed in two ways first is the structures envelops
response under the deformation and second is the human perception of discomfort against the motion
of the structure. A structure may have a good strength in terms of its capacity to stand safe against
dead loads and live loads but it does not ensure the occupants comfort against excitation. Therefore,
along with the strength design, this primary issue should also be resolved in the earlier design stage
for its better aerodynamic performance.

Kareem [6] explored the methods to bring down the discomfort motion level below the threshold and
described an nth power law for the biodynamical response of the human body to the motion, which
relates the stimulus to the perception of human to motion:

(2)

5
Where S is stimulus, R is sensory greatness and K is a constant. The parameter S that is a product of
the amplitude and power of frequency, which is to be controlled for the comfort of habitats. Pozzuoli
et.al. [32] also investigated responses and resonant conditions of the super tall building in both the
directions and proposed the procedure for governing the discomfort.

Building motion due to wind-structure interaction comprised of two constituents, which can be
regarded as static or sustained and second, the resonant or oscillatory vibrations. The former one is
not perceptible to the residing person but counted for drift estimation and the later one is dynamic and
manifested by the humans [13].The acceptability of motion is based on the period of occurrence of
extreme events, Duration and frequency of occurrence above the threshold have more essence than
peak values with less occurrence interval [6]. Since tall buildings may be categorized as residential,
hotels or offices, the comfort criteria are different for each category. Based on the study of Burton
et.al. [13], the threshold accelerations can be used as guidelines for the decision-making in case of
building designs, and following criteria can be followed:

5 m-g acceleration value is generally not perceptible by the humans and does not cause any panic or
discomfort conditions, furthermore, it does occur occasionally and occurrence duration is quite short.
10 m-g acceleration magnitude can be felt by most of the peoples and provokes the feeling of
inconvenience. This magnitude of motion if sustained for a longer period may be unpleasant for the
occupants. 35 m-g to 40 m-g range of building motion is the extreme case which if prevailed may turn
out to be inconvenient for the occupants to balance. Such kind of motions in to be analyzed with
prudence.

According to the Chinese code JGJ3-2002, the acceptable level of acceleration for along wind and
across wind must be 15 m-g for apartments and 25 m-g for hotels and offices [16]. Many other such
guidelines by the researchers are available for decision-making.

4. Approaches for mitigation of across wind Loads and responses

The response of building majorly influenced by the aerodynamic characteristics of wind

(Design wind speed, turbulence) and the mechanical properties of the building (Mass, stiffness, and
damping) [7]. Considering the safety of the structure, human perception to vibration and serviceability
measures, numerous techniques have been presented so far to alleviate the discomforting motion
induced. To ensure the functional performance of the building concerning the dynamic wind action
and for the optimal design of buildings, adaptation of these devices and practices needs to be carefully
examined. The response of the structure is inversely proportional to the product of mass and the
square root of structural damping ratio [6] and response value under the threshold level can be
achieved by the parametric adjustment of structural properties i.e. mass, stiffness, and damping.

Kareem [6] scrutinized the effect of stiffness and damping (keeping other parameters constant) as
follows:

⁄ ( ⁄ ) (3)

⁄ ( ⁄ ) ⁄
(4)

Where is RMS response, f is frequency, is constant which depends on the approaching wind
characteristics, building load and direction of load and is damping ratio.

An Increase in stiffness decreases the amplitude of vibration, yet increases the natural frequency of
motion and directly influences the perception of motion of the habitats and in general, people are
more responsive to higher frequency rather than lower frequency motion.

6
To ensure the safety and serviceability of structure along with the acceptability of acceleration for
comfort through structural/aerodynamic modifications and employing auxiliary devices (Active,
Passive, Mixed Damping devices) numerous studies and approaches have been put forward by
researchers and codes [6,30,31,33–40]. One of such study by Zhou et.al. [22] has been included in
ASCE-7. Vickery et.al. [38] also offered detailed study concerning the role of damping, mass, and
stiffness in the mitigation of wind effects on buildings.

Kareem et.al. [3] presented an entire range of mitigation approaches to ensure the decent functional
performance of structures and such modes to curb down the wind-induced response has been shown in
the Fig.4.

Fig. 4. Mitigation approaches

4.1. Increasing stiffness

Stiffness is considered as an important aspect of structural stability and response. High wind
speed and low stiffness make structure more disposed to vortex induced across wind vibrations [16].
Increase in stiffness of the building (which increases the natural frequency of the building) by means
of selection of proper structural system has been proved to be one of the very efficient approaches to
suppress down the motion of structure without affecting the exterior of the structure [13,23]. Yet,
increase in stiffness can be inappropriate and might result in an increase in capital invested on
construction, and in addition, it can reduce the deployable area in the interior (as the size of the
columns has to be increased).

4.2. Increasing building mass

The frequency of sway motion of the structure is directly influenced by the mass of the
building and stiffness. Effect of increase in mass of building on response may be understood with the
help of Scruton number:

S c= ( ( )) (5)

Where m is the generalized mass per unit length, is the logarithmic decline in damping, is air
density and B is the building width. This number is inversely proportional to the amplitude of
vibrations. So it is evident that increase in mass reduces the amplitude of vibration, but increasing

7
mass is not good practice and not preferable after a certain limit which attributes to the increase in
seismic forces and the addition of cost.

Structural measures sometimes might not mitigate the motion of the building reasonably, so some
additional options like dampers are adopted to reduce the motions.

4.3. Addition of damping devices

Damping is the ability of a structure to dissipate the energy. Higher damping ratio ensures the
better efficiency, and dissipation ability of any structure must be higher than the rate at which the
wind imparts energy to the structure. From Eqn. 5, on increasing value with some kind of
supplementary mechanism, it can render additional damping to damp down the amplitude of motion.
Integration of auxiliary damping devices e.g. TMD (tuned mass damper), TLD (tuned liquid damper),
TLCD (tuned liquid column damper) are efficient mechanism to control the across wind motion of the
building. Several kinds of damping devices are available, for instance active, passive, hybrid and
semi-active control and numerous studies are available on response reduction by auxiliary devices
[3,6,38–42]. Nonetheless, these devices besides reducing response, need periodic inspection and
maintenance, which makes this practice less intended.

The Park Hyatt Tower is the impeccable example of the application of damping device to reduce
awful motion. The tower was under the effect of wake buffeting provoked excitations by existing
John Hancock Tower. During the wind tunnel tests on initially planned structure, acceleration was
found to be above the desired level (26-30 milli-g for 10-year return period and at 2% damping ratio)
for a residential building while the targeted acceleration was identified to be 15milli-g. After
extensive examination of adding structural and shape change, a tuned mass damper was instated to
bring down acceleration to desired limit [42].

5. Aerodynamic modifications

Despite the fact that, effects of vortex shedding generated oscillatory motions can be
suppressed by auxiliary damping devices, approaches other than shape modification do not change the
cause of vortex shedding or its source. The source of shedding is the shape itself and through the
change in the outer architecture of building in such a way that flow of wind around the building is
smooth like in case of the streamlined body, is a preferable alternative and the physical mechanism of
vortex formation can be customized [16]. The aerodynamic shapes impede the formation of alternate
vortices from the windward sides of the building and brakes the coherent vortices formation [5,14].

Based on the impact of modification on the outer architecture of the main structure, aerodynamic
modifications can be categorized in two ways i.e. major modifications and minor modifications (Fig.
5). Major modifications have significant impact on the whole concept of architecture of building and
designer can execute it in early design stage of the building (e.g. tapering, setback, twisting, opening
etc.). On the other hand, minor modifications have little effect on the parent geometry and can be
introduced at later stage of conceptual design (e.g. corner modifications like rounded, chamfered,
recessed corner etc.).

8
Fig. 5. Aerodynamic modifications

5.1. Minor Modifications

Square and rectangular bluff shaped buildings are very conventional, which are more exposed
to the vigorous vortex shedding induced vibrations and galloping oscillations during strong winds
[17,23,43,44]. Shear layer separation is one of the governing features for aerodynamic characteristics.
Corner modifications (Fig. 6) promote shear layer reattachment and narrowing the width of wake
region behind the leeward face consequently reduction in along wind and across wind fluctuating
forces is obtained [43–45]. Chamfering, rounding, recession, and slotted corners etc. are reliable
techniques to significantly reduce wake excited motions up-to 30% [4] and as stated by Tamura et.al.
[45] a significant amount of along-wind load up 60% can be reduced. The optimal modification length
at which best mitigation effects can be found is about 10% of the width of the building [17].

Fig. 6. Examples of corner modifications

Fig. 7 indicates the flow field structure around selected corner modification models in vertical
and horizontal planes (at 2/3rd height ). The following flow structures were obtained with the help of
CFD (computational fluid dynamics) unsteady flow analysis performed on ANSYS/Fluent software.
All the simulations were carried out with unsteady DDES (Delayed detached-eddy simulation)
turbulence model and a power law velocity profile was entered through user-defined function.
Alteration in flow structure depends on the type and extent of modifications, from Fig. 7, it is evident
that corner modifications alter the flow structure three dimensionally and affect the width/length of
the wake formed on leeward side of the body. As compared to square model, the separation of shear
layer from the sides of the building model is decreased and reattachment is observed for the cases of
corner modified models, the wake width of modified models is narrowed down which causes the

9
increase of negative pressure (less negative) on the leeward side of the building model and
consequently reduces the wind-induced drag. Due to symmetry in the shape the mean across-wind
load is observed to be zero in CFD analysis and significant reduction of drag force is obtained.

(a) Square

(b) Rounding

(c) Chamfering

(d) Corner Cut/Recession

Fig. 7. Flow structure around corner modified models

During the wind tunnel test of Taipei 101 (Fig. 8(a)), the across wind load was found to be
unreasonably high and transverse acceleration beyond the level of comfort for habitats. To deal with
these problems double recessed corner modifications were introduced which resulted in suppression
of transverse load by 25% and it also reduced oscillations but to bring down the acceleration level

10
further to the acceptable range a tuned mass damper had to install [5,9,29,46,47]. Zhang et.al. [48]
also analyzed the effects of single and double recessed corners with different recession ratio (b/B, b=
cutting length, B= model width) and concluded that 7.5% recession ratio gives best results in terms of
reduction in forces and both type of modifications successfully reduce the base moment and torque
coefficients. Gu and Quan [24,25] considered square and rectangular models of super tall building
with corner cut and beveled corner to investigated the across wind dynamics and aerodynamic
damping characteristics of the building.

Aerodynamic modifications may be efficient for suppression of wind excitation and

construction cost but it may cost the valuable or saleable/rentable floor area due to the decrease in
volume after modification. The economic perspective of aerodynamic modifications was discussed by
Tse et.al. [49] and the formulae to relate across wind response to building dimensions and dynamic
properties were proposed, with the help of these formulae assessment was done for financial profits
and further the construction cost, financial returns etc. were examined.

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. (a) Taipei 101, Taiwan Corner recession (b) 102 Incheon Tower, South Korea ([29])

Slotted, chamfered corners and horizontal slots could reduce the along-wind and across-wind
responses effectively. In the study of Kwok [50], Kwok et.al. [41] it is found that chamfered model is
able to reduce along-wind and across-wind response by 40% and 30% respectively. Slots at the corner
allow to bleed the air through these passages and as a result, it brings down the vortex excitation. 102
Incheon Tower, South Korea (Fig. 8(b)) is provided with slots at the corner and it was observed that it
could reduce the base moment by 60% [29].

Some researchers have examined use of fins, vented fins. Use of these features could increase the
along-wind response due to increase in projected area but across-wind response could be reduced
significantly, as vented fins reduce negative peak pressure under separated shear layer on side faces.
In general, it is advisable to avoid the use of fins due to increase in drag and maintenance [6,51].

11
Holmes [28] reported that providing chamfering of the order of 10% can reduce along wind response
up to 40% and across wind response up to 30% compared to rectangular cross section shaped
building. While Kareem et.al. [3] proposed that corner modification may not always be an effective
method for across wind response as it may give rise to adverse effects.

The corner rounding leads the geometry toward the circular cylinder shape that is very efficient
against winds. Among rounding, chamfering and recession corner modifications, rounding is most
effective in terms of reduction of aeroelastic instability and level of oscillations decreases as the
modification length in rounding increases, while in case of chamfered and recession corners increase
in modification length could decrease its effectiveness [44]. In the study of Kawai [44], an important
observation was made i.e. for small modification length of recession and chamfer, suppression of
instability is not due to suppression of vortex shedding but due to an increase of aerodynamic
damping. As the generalization of wind load on the modified model is not possible due to a unique set
of environmental conditions for every case, an optimization analysis could be useful to govern the
rightful modification, Elshaer et.al. [11] performed aerodynamic optimization study for corner
modifications by combining genetic algorithm, CFD and ANN modeling. This study evaluated that
the mean drag coefficient is reduced by 30% and a reduction of 24% can be achieved for optimal
corner modification. The dynamic response for drag is lowered by 29% and dynamic lift by 52%.

A small change in the basic geometrical shape of the building can provide a fair amount of damping
effect. In this line, Hayashida and Iwasa [23] reconnoitered the aerodynamic attributes and
aerodynamic damping effects of basic cross-section shapes i.e. square, triangular, Y shape with the
corner cuts, square with corner rounding and circular model with roughness on the surface. Miyashita
et.al. [27] concluded that, chamfering, recession and opening modifications increase the correlation of
forces in two directions and for high velocities the response is majorly influenced by resonant
component rather than non-resonant component, the along-wind fluctuating force is not affected much
but these modifications are effective for reduction in across-wind fluctuating force for low angle of
incidences.

However, corner modifications are particularly aimed to reduce the wind-induced loads, the balconies
on the outer surfaces of the buildings are conventional and frequently constructed feature of a
residential building in the cities. The balconies on the outer surface act as roughness and can change
the distribution of extreme values of local suction pressure caused by flow separation on the outer
surfaces of the building considerably [9,52,53]. Maruta et.al. [52] inspected the effects of width of
balconies on local peak suction pressures on the side surfaces of the building. In this study it is
summarized that the increase in surface roughness results in reduction of probability of occurrences of
local peak pressure zones on the side surfaces due to restriction of transfer of pressure fluctuations to
the surface by roughness, which obstructs the generation of conical vortices from upper and lower
part of the building [54] (Fig. 9).

12
Fig. 9. Conical vortices formation from upper and lower part of building ([54])

The addition of spoilers on the outer envelope of the structure interrupts the coherency and
consistency of the vortices shedding from the structures and can be considered as an effective way,
Zdravkovich [55] performed a very comprehensive review work on such kind of mechanisms for
circular cylinder kind of structures like chimneys. Table 1 summarizes the past studies on minor
modifications.
Table 1 Summaries of minor modifications

Reference Method Modification Remarks

Kwok and Aeroelastic Vertical fins, vented Fins increase along-wind response,
Bailey [51] fins, corner slots decreases the across-wind response,
slotted corner is effective for both the
directions
Kwok [50], Aeroelastic Chamfering, corner Significant effect on along-wind and
Kwok et.al. [41] slots, horizontal slots across-wind excitation and responses.
Hayashida and HFFB Triangular, circular, Changing the basic cross-section shape
Iwasa [23] Y-shape with Corner shows some damping effects.
cut rounding and
surface roughness
Miyashita et.al. HFFB Chamfering, recession, Fluctuating component of across-wind
[27] openings along the force is reduced for normal wind
height incidence angle
Tamura et.al. CFD Chamfering, rounding Along-wind and across-wind forces
[45] are reduced.
Kawai [44] Aeroelastic Chamfering, recession, Corner rounding is more effective than
rounding other two.
Tamura and HFFB Chamfering, rounding Along-wind forces are reduced
Miyagi [43] satisfactorily

Gu and Quan HFFB Chamfering, recession Formulas for across wind force PSD,
[24,25] coefficients of the base moment and
shear forces are derived, effect of
aerodynamic damping on across-wind
dynamics investigated.
Tse et.al. [49] HFFB Chamfering, recession The recessed corner is more effective
over chamfered for small modification
lengths.
Zhengwei et.al. HFFB Single and double Both modifications reduce moment
[48] recession and torque coefficients effectively,
7.5% recession ratio is most effective.
Elshaer et.al. CFD Number of corner For optimal shape, mean along-wind
[11] configurations for and fluctuating across-wind force
optimization analysis coefficients could be reduced
considerably.
*HFFB- High Frequency Force Balance, CFD-Computational Fluid Dynamics

13
5.2. Major Modifications

5.2.1. Tapering and setback

From Eq.1, the vortex shedding frequency is dependent on the width of the building (B) and St.
Tapering and setback (Fig. 10) spread the vortex-shedding over the broad range of frequencies and
consequently vortices shed at different frequency throughout the height [56]. The spread and variation
of shedding frequency along elevation suppress the coherency and excitation caused by vortex
shedding and so the corresponding fluctuating forces and response [6,9,12,20,57,58].

(a) (b)

Fig. 10. (a) Taper Configuration (b) Set-back Configuration

Fig. 11 depicts the flow pattern around tapered building in vertical and horizontal planes (at 2/3rd
height) obtained from CFD analysis. Tapered and set-back models reduce the drag force due to their
geometrical characteristics. Owing to increasing dimension in downward direction the down-wash
phenomenon retards with lesser velocity and upward flow accelerates with higher velocity on account
of lesser width, resulting in to lesser pressure coefficient near bottom and larger pressure coefficient at
top level as compared to reference square model. On the other hand, the suppression of fluctuating
across-wind force is associated with the fact that, the height modified models suppress the centralized
peak energy allied with vortex shedding near shedding frequency/Strouhal number.

(a) Taper

Fig. 11. Flow structure around tapered and set-back models

John Hancock Centre (Tapering ratio: long side 9.1% & short side 5.5%), Yokohama Landmark
Tower (Tapering Ratio: 5.7% on both sides) and Transamerica Pyramid (Fig. 12) are the real time
premier examples of tapering modifications.

14
 (a) (b) (c)

Fig. 12. (a)John Hancock Centre, Chicago (b)Yokohama Landmark Tower, Japan (c)Transamerica Pyramid,
San Francisco

The Burj Khalifa Building (Fig. 13) with its peculiar design, a highly non-uniform cross section along
elevation consisting of tapered and setback in spiral pattern inhibits the formation of synchronized and
organized vortices, consequently, minimizes lateral forces and ensures the motion of building within
the decent range [59].

Fig. 13. Burj Khalifa Tower, Dubai

The Petronas Tower, Jin Mao Tower and The Sear Tower (Fig. 14) are provided with a slight setback
for tapering effect, which resulted in curtailing of vortex shedding effects. The sculptured body at the
top of the building as can be seen in above figures serves two purposes simultaneously, first, it
emphasizes the height and also reduces response [3].

15
 (a) (b) (c)

Fig. 14. (a) Petronas twin Tower, Kuala Lumpur (b) Jin Mao Tower, Shanghai (c) The Sears Tower, Chicago

The flow environment conditions could affect the aerodynamic conditions of the buildings. Kim and
You [20] opted two environment flow conditions to investigate the responses of tapered models with
different taper ratios and it was deduced that tapering is more efficient for suburban rather than urban
flow environment and across wind response may not always be reduced. Kim et.al. [56] investigated
across-wind response for tapered models and reported that the excitations can be suppressed only for
the combination of high reduced velocities with moderate damping ratios, and for high reduced
velocities and low damping ratios (<1%) the increased taper ratio could give unfavorable excitations.

Kim and Kanda [57] for tapered and setback model (setback at mid height and same surface area)
found a successful reduction of the along-wind OTM (Over-turning Moment) and across-wind
fluctuating moment. In another study by Kim and Kanda [60] for same models, it has been reported
that the mean along wind and fluctuating across wind forces could be reduced drastically for
increasing taper ratios but setback model is more worthwhile than tapered models. Kim and Kanda
[58] through series of wind pressure measurement on tapered and set-back models reported that
pressure on windward faces does not have significant changes but due to change in geometrical
characteristics the minimum absolute value of pressure coefficient is larger than the square model.
Due to variation of width along the height, the frequency of shedding varies and vortices formation
shifts up [58]. Deng et.al. [61] suggests that tor increased tapering ratios the energy of vortices
decreases but the frequency of shedding increases. Cooper et.al. [62] have also studied the effect of
taper on the unsteady aerodynamic forces.

Responses of the structurally asymmetric building (eccentricity between the center of mass/rigidity
and geometric center) could be different from symmetric buildings for same environmental conditions
and sometimes may pose amplified response issues during strong winds. To address this issue Kim
et.al. [63] analyzed the correlation among responses for tapered and set-back shapes with eccentricity.
In this study cross-wind acceleration for eccentricities was found to be higher for tapered and set-back
models compared to the basic square model.

5.2.2. Varying Cross-Sectional shape along Elevation:

Similar to the tapering and setback modifications, changing the cross section along the
elevation (e.g. square to round, square to polygon, Fig. 15) is also one of the ways of altering the flow
characteristics and distributing the shedding frequency along the height. As discussed in minor
modification section, corner modifications leads the geometry towards circular cross-section and are

16
more efficient than sharp cornered bodies. The octagonal and circular cross-sections can be seen as
large degree of corner chamfering and corner rounding respectively. Corner modified or circular
sections stimulate the reattachment of shear layer, narrowing of wake and increase in leeward pressure
(less negative) which reduces the resultant drag on the body. Moreover, the polygon/circular shaped
cross-section for the upper elevation (with lesser projected area) interacts with the high wind speed
region and thus reduces the loads. Not much record of literature is found on such kind of
modifications and needs to be focused.

Fig. 15. Varying cross-sectional shape along height

The following figure (Fig. 16 ) demonstrate the change in flow pattern caused due to the variation of
cross-section at mid height. The upper octagonal shaped cross-section narrows down the wake region
as compared to square section and the separation of shear layer is delayed. In CFD study of varying
cross section model having square in lower half and octagonal cross-section in upper half,
approximately 22% reduction in mean along wind force is observed.

Fig. 16. Flow pattern around building with varying cross section at mid height

5.2.3. Twisting/ Helix:

CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and urban Habitat) defines a “twisting” building as one
that progressively rotates its floor plates or its facade as it gains height. A twisted form of architecture
is latest design trend fascinating some architects and has been exercised in recent years for buildings.
To the best of author’s knowledge, the first such twisted structure constructed is Turning Torso (Fig.
17(a)) in Sweden with 900 twist (clockwise) completed in 2005. After completion of this building,
many other such structures were proposed and constructed. Twisting form suppresses the dynamic
response of tall buildings by breaking the coherency of vortex shedding, which avoids the

17
simultaneous shedding throughout the height and is also effective for prevailing wind directions as it
dodges the orientation of building in such a way that it’s least favorable aspect does not coincide with
the strongest wind direction. Bandi et.al. [64], Zhao et.al. [16], Kim et.al. [65] studied effects of
helical angles on the wind-induced loads on the buildings. Shanghai Tower China, tallest (632 m.)
(Fig. 17(b)) twisting structure till now, is positioned in close proximity to Jin Mao Tower and
Shanghai World Financial Centre, due to its unique curved and twisted shape it is 24% more efficient
than rectangular section in reducing wind induced loads [66]. The Cayan Tower Dubai (Fig. 17(c)), is
a helically shaped building having 900 turning angle over the course of its height, gives it distinctive,
innovative and efficient form. Not only wind load point of view but also this structure is also efficient
for enhanced indoor comfort.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 17. Illustration of twisted structures (a) Turning Torso, Sweden (b) Shanghai Tower, China (c) Cyan
Tower, Dubai with 90degree helical

5.2.4. Addition of Openings

The opening allows the air to bleed through the structure, it weakens and disrupt the vortex
formation, affects the wake region formation by reducing the negative peak pressure in the leeward
side of the building, and reduces the correlation between the forces on the side faces of the building
[6,67]. This concept has been employed in Shanghai world financial tower (Fig. 18).

18
 Fig. 18. Shanghai World Financial Center

Dutton and Isyumov [67] introduced along wind and cross wind gaps at three levels along the height,
observed that, across wind gap alone is not as effective as along wind gap and provision of along wind
and cross wind gaps if provided simultaneously are more effective for the suppression of responses.
Gaps sift the resonant response to the higher reduced velocity range and the optimal gap width (d/D, d
is gap width, D building width) is found to be 4%-5%. A summary and main findings of the studies
mentioned above are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary and main findings of previous studies on major modifications

Reference Method Modification Conclusions

Kim and You HFFB 5%, 10%, 15%, Tapering is more effective for across-wind
[20] direction than along-wind direction, responses
are not always reduced.
Kim et.al. [56] Aeroelastic 5%, 10%, 15% Tapering is beneficial for high-reduced
frequencies with moderate damping ratios,
increase in response for very low damping and
high-velocity range.
Kim and Kanda HFFB, 5%, 10% tapered Mean drag and fluctuating lift forces are
[57] SMPSS and set-back reduced, the set-back model is more effective
in reduction than tapered.
Kim and Kanda HFFB 5%, 10% tapered Mean along-wind and fluctuating across-wind
[60] and set-back OTM decrease significantly
Kim et.al. [63] HFFB 5%, 10% tapered Modified models with the mass center and
and set-back rigidity center eccentricity have lesser along
wind and torsional acceleration but across-
wind acceleration is high, increase in
eccentricity decreases across-wind
acceleration and increases torsional
acceleration.
Kim and Kanda SMPSS 5%, 10% tapered The height of vortex formation moves
[58] and set-back upward, vortices shed more frequently in
upper region than lower region.
Deng et.al. [61] SMPSS 2.2%, 4.4%, Reduction in across-wind response
6.6% effectively, mitigation effect increases with
increase in taper ratio, vortex shedding
frequency increases.
Kim et.al. [15] Aeroelastic 10% Responses of the tapered model are
suppressed for low turbulence and urban flow
environment but grid generated flow gives
adverse results.
Bandi et.al. [64] SMPSS 600, 1800, 3600 Reduction of max mean and fluctuating OTM
helical coefficients in both the direction, increase in
the helical angle the peak in cross-wind OTM
PSD decreases.
Dutton and HFFB Opening Reduction of across-wind excitation, large
Isyumov [67] reduction for gap d/D= 4%

19
*SMPSS- Synchronous Multi-pressure Sensing System

Apart from above studies on aerodynamic modifications, a vast record of literature on unconventional
shapes by Tamura’s group is available [2,64,68–73]. This group has extensively explored the
aerodynamic characteristics of almost all possible realistic building shapes, conventional or
unconventional (square, rectangle, circular, triangular cross sections with corner, taper, setback,
opening, twisting modifications, composite models etc.) and has done the mutual comparison of the
effectiveness of the all the shapes (Table 3).
Table 3. Main findings on unconventional shapes

Reference Method Modification Conclusion

Tanaka SMPSS Basic Models- Aerodynamic
et.al. [2,73] Corner Modifications: C.C, chamfering; force,
Tilted Models: Tilted, winding; moment
Tapered Models: 2-TP, 4-TP, inversely 4-TP, bulged coefficients
models, 4 layer SB. and pressure
Helical Models- 900, 1800, 2700 and 3600 helical; distributions
Opening Models- Cross opening, oblique opening; are
Composite Models- 3600 helical+ CC, 4 TP+3600 investigated
helical+ CC, SB+ CC, SB with 450 rotation of each
level
Bandi et.al. SMPSS Basic Model- Effect of
[72] Composite modifications- + CC, + 600 helical, helical shape
0 0
+ 180 helical, + 360 helical; on wind force
clover and moment
coefficients
are
investigated.
Tamura HFFB, Models taken in the study of Tanaka et.al. 2012 and Study of force
et.al. [68] SMPSS + CC, + 600 helical, and moment
0
+ 180 helical, + 3600 helical; Clover; coefficients
Polygon Models- Pentagon, hexagon, octagon, and pressure
dodecagon; distribution
Polygon Models with composite modifications: was done.
Pentagon+ 1800 helical, hexagon+ 1800 helical,
octagon+ 1800 helical, dodecagon+ 1800 helical
Kim et.al. SMPSS Basic Model- , Wind load
[69] Corner Modifications- CC, chamfering; combinations
Taper modification- TP ,SB are
900 1800helical, cross opening, investigated
Composite modifications-TP+ CC+1800 helical, and
TP+CC +3600 helical, SB+ 450 rotation combination
rules are
proposed.
Kim et.al. SMPSS Aerodynamic
[70] Pentagon, hexagon, octagon, dodecagon, characteristics
+1800 helical, +1800 helical, pentagon+1800 are
helical, hexagon+1800 helical, octagon+1800 helical, investigated
dodecagon+1800 helical
Kim et.al. SMPSS +Chamfer, CC, TP, SB, 900, 1800 helical, cross Peak normal
[71] void, CC+1800 helical, TP+1800 helical, CC+TP+1800 stresses are
helical, CC+TP+ 3600, SB+ 450 rotation compared
Bandi et.al. SMPSS All models taken in study of Kim et.al. 2013, Peak

20
[72] + CC+ clover, +CC, +chamfer, pressures are
+1800 helical+ CC, TP+ 1800 helical, TP+3600+CC, studied
SB+ 450 rotation

6. Future Scope and Recommendations

o Although the aerodynamic modifications are efficient in improving building aerodynamics,

this efficiency may come at the cost of usable floor area of the building. The economical
perspective of these modifications is still a grey area and needs attention of the researchers.
o An optimization analysis is required to be explored for global aerodynamic treatments,
although a recent study done by Elshaer et.al. (2017) and few such studies have focused on
optimization analysis of corner modifications (local) only, more such optimization
evaluations are needed to be discussed. Computational fluid dynamics is very convenient and
efficient tool for optimization analysis and its application in this field is required to be
explored. The optimization analysis of modification on tall building and extent of
modification is needed to be examined.
o Besides the effectiveness of modifications for wind-induced loads, its effect on the pedestrian
level wind environment should also be investigated.
o Varying cross-section along the elevation of the building is still a grey area which needs to be
considered in future research.
o In a typical urban environment the excitation caused by the interference can be a serious issue
of concern, in such cases of interference by neighbor buildings, the potency of aerodynamic
modifications is uncertain and should be investigated individually.
7. Conclusions

Although the fact that the shape of the building is primarily driven by the site conditions,
economical aspects, architectural and engineering determinants, the aerodynamic treatments of shape
of tall building are also needed to be considered, as even a small amount of change in geometrical
shape can provide a fair amount of damping against wind-induced loads. However, the aerodynamic
treatments can reduce the wind-induced excitations, it cannot be eliminated completely. So,
additional damping devices are always advisable and due to wide variability in shape, size and
interaction with surrounding, the wind-tunnel testing is always recommended at the design stage to
verify the effects of all geometrical and structural parameters.
In present work various methods of mitigation of wind-induced loads and excitations are reviewed
and researchers can obtain an overall overview and understanding of aerodynamic modification
techniques and effective design approach to reduce the wind-induced loads and excitations. This
review can be referred to make choices in selection of appropriate aerodynamic treatments. The main
findings of this work are summarized as follows:
o Bluff shaped structures are more vulnerable to vigorous wind-induced excitations and can be
controlled either by structural or aerodynamic modifications.
o Structural modifications consider the parametric adjustment of structural properties such as
mass, stiffness and damping, but these modifications can lead to increased capital
expenditure.
o Aerodynamic modifications either through major or minor changes in shape of the structure
change the vortex shedding phenomenon and wake dynamics. Minor modifications (corner
rounding, chamfering, corner cut etc.) promote the shear layer reattachment and narrow down
the wake width on leeward side of the building and can result in to a reduction of 30%-60% in
wind-induced loads. On the other hand major modifications (e.g. Taper, set-back, twist etc.)
can change the vortex shedding phenomenon throughout height. Height modified models

21
 spread vortex formation over a broad range of frequencies and force the vortices to shed at
different frequencies, consequently there is reduction in excitation.
o The impact of aerodynamic modifications cannot be disregarded but these modifications may
sometimes give adverse results too depending on the local environment conditions. So, these
methods should be deployed considering all the associated constraints i.e. wind flow
characteristics, surrounding environment of the concerned building, geometrical and
economic constraints, functional requirements etc.

Acknowledgements

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and
suggestions on the manuscript.

References:

[1] 100 Tallest Completed Buildings in the World - The Skyscraper Center, (n.d.).
https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buildings (accessed September 11, 2017).
[2] H. Tanaka, Y. Tamura, K. Ohtake, M. Nakai, Y. Chul Kim, Experimental investigation of
aerodynamic forces and wind pressures acting on tall buildings with various unconventional
configurations, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 107–108 (2012) 179–191.
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2012.04.014.
[3] A. Kareem, T. Kijewski, Y. Tamura, Mitigation of motions of tall buildings with specific
examples of recent applications, Wind Struct. An Int. J. 2 (1999) 201–251.
doi:10.12989/was.1999.2.3.201.
[4] Y.C. Kim, J. Kanda, Wind response characteristics for habitability of tall buildings in Japan,
Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 17 (2008) 683–718. doi:10.1002/tal.373.
[5] J. Xie, Aerodynamic optimization of super-tall buildings and its effectiveness assessment, J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 130 (2014) 88–98. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2014.04.004.
[6] A. Kareem, Mitigation of wind induced motion Of tall buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
11 (1983) 273–284.
[7] A.G. Davenport, The response of six building shapes to turbulent wind, Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 269 (1971) 385–394. doi:10.1098/rsta.1971.0039.
[8] B.E. Lee, Some observation of the aspect ratio on the influence of turbulence on the drag of
rectangular cylinder, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 33 (1990) 107–111.
[9] P.A. Irwin, Bluff body aerodynamics in wind engineering, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 96
(2008) 701–712. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2007.06.008.
[10] Y. Nakamura, Bluff-body aerodynamics and turbulence, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 49 (1993)
65–78. doi:10.1016/0167-6105(93)90006-A.
[11] A. Elshaer, G. Bitsuamlak, A. El Damatty, Enhancing wind performance of tall buildings
using corner aerodynamic optimization, Eng. Struct. 136 (2017) 133–148.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.019.
[12] P.A. Irwin, Wind engineering challenges of the new generation of super-tall buildings, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 97 (2009) 328–334. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2009.05.001.

22
[13] M.D. Burton, K.C.S. Kwok, A. Abdelrazaq, Wind-induced motion of tall buildings: Designing
for occupant comfort, Int. J. High-Rise Build. 4 (2015) 1–8. doi:10.1061/9780784413852.
[14] M. Asghari, R. Kargarmoakhar, Aerodynamic mitigation and shape optimization of buildings :
Review, J. Build. Eng. 6 (2016) 225–235. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2016.01.009.
[15] Y.C. Kim, Y. Tamura, S. Yoon, Effect of taper on fundamental aeroelastic behaviors of super-
tall buildings, Wind Struct. An Int. J. 20 (2015) 527–548.
[16] X. Zhaoa, J.M. Ding, H.H. Suna, Structural design of shanghai tower for wind loads, Procedia
Eng. 14 (2011) 1759–1767. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.221.
[17] P. Irwin, J. Kilpatrick, A. Frisque, Friend or Foe - Wind at Height, in: CTBUH 8th World
Congr., Dubai, 2008.
[18] N. Lin, C. Letchford, Y. Tamura, B. Liang, O. Nakamura, Characteristics of wind forces acting
on tall buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 217–242.
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2004.12.001.
[19] H.E. Ilgin, M.H. Gunel, The role of aerodynamic modifications in the form of tall buildings
against wind excitation, Metu Jfa. 2 (2007) 2.
[20] Y.M. Kim, K.P. You, Dynamic responses of a tapered tall building to wind loads, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 1771–1782. doi:10.1016/S0167-6105(02)00286-6.
[21] K.C.S. Kwok, Cross-wind response of tall buildings, Eng. Struct. 4 (1982) 256–262.
doi:10.1016/0141-0296(82)90031-1.
[22] Y. Zhou, T. Kijewski, A. Kareem, Aerodynamic loads on tall buildings: Interactive database,
J. Struct. Eng. 129 (2003) 394–404. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:3(394).
[23] H. Hayashida, Y. Iwasa, Aerodynamic shape effects of tall building for vortex induced
vibration, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 33 (1990) 237–242. doi:10.1016/0167-6105(90)90039-
F.
[24] M. Gu, Y. Quan, Across-wind loads of typical tall buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 92
(2004) 1147–1165. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2004.06.004.
[25] M. Gu, Y. Quan, Across-wind loads and effects of super-tall buildings and structures, Sci.
China Technol. Sci. 54 (2011) 2531–2541. doi:10.1007/s11431-011-4543-5.
[26] Q.S. Li, J.Y. Fu, Y.Q. Xiao, Z.N. Li, Z.H. Ni, Z.N. Xie, M. Gu, Wind tunnel and full-scale
study of wind effects on China’s tallest building, Eng. Struct. 28 (2006) 1745–1758.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.02.017.
[27] K. Miyashita, Wind induced response of high rise buildings:Effects of Corner Cuts or
Openings in Square Buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 50 (1993) 319–328.
[28] J.D. Holmes, Wind loading of structures, Taylor & Francis, London and NewYork, 2007.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
[29] P.A. Irwin, Wind issues in the design of tall buildings, in: Present. Los Angeles Tall Build.
Struct. Des. Counc. Peer.berkeley.edu/tbi/wp-Content/ uploads/2010/09/Irwin.pdf,May7,2010.,
2010.
[30] F.A. Johann, M.E.N. Carlos, F.L.S. Ricardo, Wind-induced motion on tall buildings: A
comfort criteria overview, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 142 (2015) 26–42.
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2015.03.001.
[31] K.C.S. Kwok, P.A. Hitchcock, M.D. Burton, Perception of vibration and occupant comfort in
wind-excited tall buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 97 (2009) 368–380.

23
 doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2009.05.006.
[32] C. Pozzuoli, G. Bartoli, U. Peil, M. Clobes, Serviceability wind risk assessment of tall
buildings including aeroelastic effects, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 123 (2013) 325–338.
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2013.09.014.
[33] Y. Tamura, K. Fujii, T. Ohtsuki, T. Wakahara, R. Kohsaka, Effectiveness of tuned liquid
dampers under wind excitation, Eng. Struct. 17 (1995) 609–621. doi:10.1016/0141-
0296(95)00031-2.
[34] S. Lamb, K.C.S. Kwok, D. Walton, Occupant comfort in wind-excited tall buildings:Motion
Sickness,compensotary behaviour and complaint, Jnl. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 119 (2013) 1–
12. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2013.05.004.
[35] S. Lamb, K.C.S. Kwok, D. Walton, A longitudnal field study of the effects of wind-induced
building motion on occupant wellbeing and work performance, Jnl. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
133 (2014) 39–51. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2014.07.008.
[36] T. Goto, Studies on wind-indeuced motion of tall buildings based on ocupants reaction, J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 13 (1983) 241–252.
[37] W.H.Melbourne and T.R. Palmer, Accelerations and comfort criteria for buildings undergoing
complex motions, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 44 (1992) 105–116.
[38] B.J. Vickery, N. Isyumov, A.G. Davenport, The role of damping, mass and stiffness in the
reduction of wind effects on structures, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 11 (1983) 285–294.
doi:10.1016/0167-6105(83)90107-1.
[39] P. V Banavalkar, Wind Induced Dynamic Performance, J. Wind Engg. Ind. Aerody. 36 (1990)
213–224.
[40] Y. Tamura, Application of damping devices to suppress wind-induced responses of buildings,
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 74–76 (1998) 49–72. doi:10.1016/S0167-6105(98)00006-3.
[41] K.C.S. Kwok, P.A. Wilhelm, Effect of edge configuration on wind induced response of tall
buildings, Eng. Struct. 10 (1988) 6–11.
[42] P.A. Irwin, B. Breukelman, Recent applications of damping systems for wind response, in:
CTBUH 2001 6th World Congr. Melb., 2001: pp. 1–10.
[43] T. Tamura, T. Miyagi, The effect of turbulence on aerodynamic forces on a square cylinder
with various corner shapes, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 83 (1999) 135–145.
doi:10.1016/S0167-6105(99)00067-7.
[44] H. Kawai, Effect of corner modifications on aeroelastic instabilities of tall buildings, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 74–76 (1998) 719–729. doi:10.1016/S0167-6105(98)00065-8.
[45] T. Tamura, T. Miyagi, T. Kitagishi, Numerical prediction of unsteady pressures on a square
cylinder with various corner shapes, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 74–76 (1998) 531–542.
doi:10.1016/S0167-6105(98)00048-8.
[46] J. Xie, Aerodynamic optimization in super-tall building designs, in: Seventh Interantional
Colloq. Bluff Body Aerodyn. Appl., Shanghai, 2012: pp. 104–111.
[47] D. Poon, S.S. Shieh, L. Joseph, C.C.. Chang, Structural Design of Taipei 101, the World’s
Tallest Building, in: CTBUH 2004, Seoul, 2004: pp. 271–278.
[48] Z. Zhengwei, Q. Yong, G. Ming, T. Nankun, X. Yong, Effects of corner recession
modification on aerodynamic coefficients of square tall buildings, in: Seventh Interantional
Colloq. Bluff Body Aerodyn. Appl., Shanghai, 2012: pp. 959–968.

24
[49] K.T. Tse, P.A. Hitchcock, K.C.S. Kwok, S. Thepmongkorn, C.M. Chan, Economic
perspectives of aerodynamic treatments of square tall buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 97
(2009) 455–467. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2009.07.005.
[50] K.C.S. Kwok, Effect of building shapes on wind induced response of tall building, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 28 (1988) 381–390.
[51] K.C.S. Kwok, P.A. Bailey, Aerodynamic devices for tall buildings and structures, J. Eng.
Mech. 113 (1987) 349–365.
[52] E. Maruta, M. Kanda, J. Sato, Effects on surface roughness for wind pressure on glass and
cladding of buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 74–76 (1998) 651–663. doi:10.1016/S0167-
6105(98)00059-2.
[53] T.Stathopoulos, X. Zhu, Wind pressure on building with appurtenances, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 31 (1988) 265–281.
[54] Y.Okuda, Y. Tanike, conical vortices over side faces of threedimensional square prism, J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 50 (1993) 163–172.
[55] M.M. Zdravkovich, Review and classification of various aerodynamic and hydrodynamic
means for suppressing vortex shedding, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7 (1981) 145–189.
doi:10.1016/0167-6105(81)90036-2.
[56] Y.M. Kim, K.P. You, N.H. Ko, Across-wind responses of an aeroelastic tapered tall building,
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 96 (2008) 1307–1319. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2008.02.038.
[57] Y. Kim, J. Kanda, Characteristics of aerodynamic forces and pressures on square plan
buildings with height variations, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 449–465.
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2010.02.004.
[58] Y.C. Kim, J. Kanda, Wind pressures on tapered and set-back tall buildings, J. Fluids Struct. 39
(2013) 306–321. doi:10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2013.02.008.
[59] W.F. Baker, P.E. Se, The world’s tallest building, Burj Dubai, U.A.E., (2004) 1168–1169.
[60] Y. Kim, J. Kanda, Effects of taper and set-back on wind force and wind-induced response of
tall buildings, Wind Struct. An Int. J. 13 (2010) 499–517.
[61] T. Deng, X. Yu, Z. Xie, Aerodynamic measurements of across-wind loads and responses of
tapered super high-rise buildings, Wind Struct. 21 (2015) 331–352.
[62] K.R. Cooper, M. Nakayama, Y. Sasaki, a. a. Fediw, S. Resende-Ide, S.J. Zan, Unsteady
aerodynamic force measurements on a super-tall building with a tapered cross section, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 72 (1997) 199–212. doi:10.1016/S0167-6105(97)00258-4.
[63] Y.C. Kim, J. Kanda, Y. Tamura, Wind-induced coupled motion of tall buildings with varying
square plan with height, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 99 (2011) 638–650.
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2011.03.004.
[64] E.K. Bandi, Y. Tamura, A. Yoshida, Y. Chul Kim, Q. Yang, Experimental investigation on
aerodynamic characteristics of various triangular-section high-rise buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 122 (2013) 60–68. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2013.07.002.
[65] Y.C. Kim, E.K. Bandi, A. Yoshida, Y. Tamura, Response characteristics of super-tall
buildings – Effects of number of sides and helical angle, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 145
(2015) 252–262. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2015.07.001.
[66] Shanghai Tower - The Skyscraper Center, (n.d.).
http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/shanghai-tower/56 (accessed September 11, 2017).

25
[67] R. Dutton, N. Isyumov, Reduction of tall building motion by aerodynamic treatments, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 36 (1990) 739–747. doi:10.1016/0167-6105(90)90071-J.
[68] Y. Tamura, H. Tanaka, K. Ohtake, Y.C. Kim, A. Yoshida, E.K. Bandi, X. Xu, Q. Yang,
Aerodynamic control of wind-induced vibrations and flow around super-tall buildings, in: 6th
Int. Conf. Adv. Exp. Strutural Eng. Int. Work. Adv. Smart Mater. Smart Strutures Technol.,
Urbana-Champaign, 2015.
[69] Y.C. Kim, Y. Tamura, S. Kim, Wind load combinations of atypical supertall buildings, J.
Strutural Eng. 142 (2016) 1–8. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001359.
[70] Y.C. Kim, E.K. Bandi, Y. Tamura, Y. A., Aerodyanmic and response characteristics of tall
buildings with various polygon cross-sections, in: Eighth Asia-Pacific Conf. Wind Eng.,
Chennai, 2013: pp. 13–22. doi:10.3850/978-981-07-8012-8.
[71] Y.C. Kim, Y. Tamura, H. Tanaka, K. Ohtake, E.K. Bandi, a. Yoshida, Wind-induced
responses of super-tall buildings with various atypical building shapes, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 133 (2014) 191–199. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2014.06.004.
[72] E.K. Bandi, H. Tanaka, Y. Kim, K. Ohtake, Y. Tamura, Peak pressures acting on tall buildings
with various configurations, Int. J. High-Rise Build. 2 (2013) 229–244.
[73] H. Tanaka, Y. Tamura, K. Ohtake, M. Nakai, Y. Kim, E.K. Bandi, Aerodynamic and flow
characteristics of tall buildings with various unconventional configurations, Int. J. High-Rise
Build. 2 (2013) 213–228.

Highlights
 Structural modifications can lead to increased capital expenditure.
 Wind-induced excitations can be controlled by aerodynamic treatments.
 A small change in the geometry can provide fair amount of damping.
 Aerodynamic modifications change the vortex shedding phenomenon and wake dynamics.
 Aerodynamic modifications should be deployed considering all the associated constraints.

26