Wind Tunnel Investigations on a Tall

Building With Elliptic Cross Section

A. Abraham, S. Selvi Rajan, P. Harikrishna and G. Ramesh Babu

Abstract According to a statistics revealed by Council of Tall Building and Urban

Habitat [1] that for every 11.5 millions of global population, there is one tall
building with 200 m+ in height available globally. Tall building constructions are
paving ways for rapid urbanization worldwide including India, especially during the
last one decade and will be continued over next few decades. Wind loads are one of
the most important loads that govern the design of tall buildings. Published data on
pressure and force coefficients for 3-D building with elliptic cross section under
boundary layer flows are very scanty. This paper presents the results on mean force
coefficients obtained through wind tunnel pressure measurements carried out on a
3-D tall building with elliptic cross section for various angles of wind incidence
under suburban terrain. It is found that the mean pressure distributions and force
coefficients depend significantly upon the angle of wind incidence.

Keywords Boundary layer wind tunnel Pressure measurement



3-D elliptic tall building Angles of wind incidence Force coefficients

A. Abraham (&)
S. Selvi Rajan
P. Harikrishna
G. Ramesh Babu

Wind Engineering Laboratory, CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre,
Chennai 600113, India
e-mail: abraham@serc.res.in
S. Selvi Rajan
e-mail: sselvi@serc.res.in
P. Harikrishna
e-mail: hari@serc.res.in
G. Ramesh Babu
e-mail: gramesh@serc.res.in

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 281

A. Rama Mohan Rao and K. Ramanjaneyulu (eds.), Recent Advances in Structural
Engineering, Volume 2, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 12,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0365-4_24
282 A. Abraham et al.

1 Introduction

Demand for tall buildings is rapidly increasing worldwide including in India due to
their significant economic benefits in dense urban land use. Wind loads are one of
the most important loads that influence the design of tall buildings. Using wind
tunnel, different techniques are being adopted for quantification of wind loads and
its associated dynamic responses on tall buildings. One such technique is measuring
the wind-induced pressures on the surface of the tall building models using pressure
sensors, and the importance of this technique is felt by the many researchers
worldwide even today. But the information on force coefficients using the pressure
measurement technique on 3-D tall building with elliptic cross section under
boundary layer flows is very scanty. Galloping instability characteristics on 2-D
bluff bodies with elliptic cross section using pressure measurement/six component
base balance techniques for angles of wind incidence from 0° to 90° were studied
through wind tunnel testing [2]. The effect of plan ratio, angle of wind incidence on
mean and unsteady pressure coefficients, Strouhal number and wake geometry on
2-D bluff bodies with elliptic cross section using pressure measurement technique
were studied through wind tunnel testing [3]. Identification of boundary layer
detachments, re-circulations, vortex shedding phenomenon and other flow struc-
tures on elliptic cross section having different plan ratios using flow visualisation
technique was studied through vertical hydrodynamic tunnel testing [4]. Dynamic
wind-induced response analyses were carried out [5] on tall building models
including elliptic plan through aerodynamic pressure/force measurements to
investigate the relationships among structural properties, aerodynamic modifica-
tions, and aerodynamic force characteristics. Wind tunnel experiment on elliptic
building model was carried out for various angles of wind incidence to find optimal
and critical wind direction through pressure measurement on the external surface
[6]. Codes of practice [7, 8] specify the force coefficients for building with elliptic
cross section corresponding to a specific plan ratio and for two important angles of
wind incidence.
Earlier wind tunnel pressure measurements study on a 3-D tall building model
with elliptic cross section having the plan dimensions of 10 cm  20 cm and
height of 70 cm was carried out for different angles of wind incidence. The fab-
rication of the model, its instrumentation (Fig. 1), simulation of wind characteristics
correspond to open terrain, data collection/analysis, and the results on aerodynamic
pressure/force coefficients based on statistical analysis of measured data were
reported elsewhere [9]. In addition, a comparison on aerodynamic mean pressure/
force coefficients was made between the values obtained from wind tunnel model
study and the values reported in the literature.
Further, wind tunnel pressure measurements study on the same tall building
model was carried out under suburban terrain condition in order to investigate the
effect of terrain conditions on aerodynamic pressure/force coefficients. Accordingly,
profiles of mean velocity and turbulence intensity (Fig. 2) to a length scale of 1:300
are simulated in the boundary layer wind tunnel by using a trip board followed by
Wind Tunnel Investigations on a Tall Building … 283

Fig. 1 Details of pressure

ports around circumferential
direction at level 1 and along
the height of the model 10 9 8 7 6 5
12 11 B = 10 4 3 + S/D
showing body axes with wind 13
direction 14 2
15 X 1
16 28
17 D = 20 27
18 Y - S/D
19 20 25 26
21 22 23 24

Plan inset: port number

outset: circumferential length
0.95H = 66.5 level 8, z8
0.9H = 63 level 7, z7
0.8H = 56 level 6, z6
0.7H = 49 level 5, z5

H=70
0.5H = 35 level 4, z4

0.3H = 21 level 3, z3
0.2H = 14 level 2, z2
0.1H = 7 level 1, z1

Elevation Not to scale

All dimension are in ‘cm’
B
FX Fd

FY Fl
D D'
T

B'
θ
0° Wind

set of wooden boards with roughness elements, as vortex generators. Typical views
of the model tested in wind tunnel for wind normal to minor and major axes (h = 0°
and 90°) under simulated suburban terrain are shown in Fig. 3.
This paper presents comparison on variation of mean pressure/force coefficients
at a typical level for different angles of wind incidence between open and suburban
terrain conditions. Further, comparison on aerodynamic mean pressure/force
coefficients is made between the values obtained from the present study and the
284 A. Abraham et al.

Fig. 2 Simulated mean

velocity and turbulence
intensity profiles under
suburban terrain

Fig. 3 Elliptic tall building

model kept inside the wind
tunnel for h = 0° and 90°
under suburban terrain

values reported in the literature. For comparison purpose, the results on mean
pressure/force coefficients obtained based on wind tunnel pressure measurements
under open terrain are considered in this paper.

2 Results and Discussions

Typical traces of instantaneous pressures at level 4 for port numbers 92 (windward)

and 86 (side) for h = 90° are shown in Fig. 4. It is observed that the instantaneous
pressures for port numbers 92 and 86 are found to be positive pressures and
negative pressures.

2.1 Comparison on Mean Pressure Coefficients

Comparison between the distributions of mean pressure/force coefficients obtained

under open and suburban terrains for h = 0°, 10°, 15°, 20°, 30°, 40°, 45°, 50°, 60°,
70°, 75°, 80°, and 90° at eight different levels are compiled elsewhere [10].
Figure 5 shows the variation of mean pressure coefficients with respect to
Wind Tunnel Investigations on a Tall Building … 285

Fig. 4 Typical instantaneous

pressure traces

normalized distance S/D (port location on the surface to major axis) obtained at
level 4 for h = 0° to 90° at 15° interval. Based on the comparison, the following
observations are made.
• In general, the variation of mean pressure coefficients is found to be different for
different angles of wind incidence. The variation of mean pressure coefficients
under open and suburban terrain conditions for all the angles of wind incidence
is similar but varying in magnitudes.
• As the angle of wind incidence progresses from h = 0° to 30°, the difference
between the variation of mean pressure coefficients (both positive and negative)
obtained at most of the levels under open and suburban terrain conditions found
similar except at bottom and top levels.
• Beyond h = 30° and as the levels progress from bottom to top, the scatter in the
variation of mean suction coefficients under suburban terrain found to be higher
than those for open terrain in the circumferential length between 21.023 and
47.301 cm.
• The magnitudes of mean suction coefficients at all the levels under suburban
terrain found to be relatively higher than those under open terrain up to h = 30°.
As the angle of incidence progresses further, the magnitudes of mean suction
coefficients under open terrain up to level 3 found to be relatively higher than
those under suburban terrain in the circumferential length between 21.023 and
47.301 cm.
• At level 4, the variation of mean pressure coefficients under open terrain equal to
the variation under suburban terrain over the entire circumferential length of the
model.
• As the level progresses from level 4 to top level, the magnitudes of mean
pressure coefficients obtained under suburban terrain are found to be relatively
higher than those for open terrain in the circumferential length between
21.023 and 47.301 cm.
286 A. Abraham et al.

Fig. 5 Comparison on variation of mean pressure coefficients for h = 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°,
and 90°

With reference to a fixed set of body axes (X and Y), orientations for forces Fx,
Fy, and Torsion (T), along with drag and lift directions corresponding to angle of
wind incidence “h” are defined in Fig. 1. The forces Fx and Fy per unit height along
the body-fixed axes X and Y, respectively, are computed with respect to respective
heights by integrating the circumferentially measured pressures accounting the
reference widths (minor and major axis). By resolving Fx and Fy in the direction of
wind and perpendicular to the direction of wind, the drag force FD and the lift force
FL are evaluated accounting the projected widths. Typical variation of mean force
coefficients in body axes X and Y (based on the minor axis) at level 4 under
Wind Tunnel Investigations on a Tall Building … 287

Fig. 5 (continued)

suburban terrain is shown in Fig. 6. Obviously, for most of the angles of wind
incidence, the magnitude of force in Y direction found to be higher than those
obtained in X direction.

2.2 Comparison on Mean Force/Torsion Coefficients

Comparison on mean drag, lift, and torsion coefficients obtained under open and
suburban terrain conditions for all the angles of wind incidence at all levels by
accounting the projected widths of D′, B′, and D′B′ are made. Typical distributions
of mean drag, lift, and torsion coefficients at level 4 are shown in Fig. 7.
The following observations are made:
• The variation of mean drag/lift force and torsion coefficients obtained at levels 4
and 8 found to well compare under both the terrain conditions.
288 A. Abraham et al.

Fig. 6 Variation of mean

force coefficients

Fig. 7 Comparison on
variation of mean drag, lift,
and torsion coefficients

• At level 1, the values of mean drag/lift force and torsion coefficients correspond
to suburban terrain found to be higher than those for open terrain in the range of
h = 60° to 90°, 20° to 80°, and 10° to 60°, respectively.
Wind Tunnel Investigations on a Tall Building … 289

3 Comparison Between Present Study and Literature

3.1 Mean Pressure Coefficients

Comparison on variation of mean Cp between the present study (B/D = 0.5, under
open and suburban terrain conditions) on 3-D elliptical bluff body at level 4 and the
literature [3] on 2-D elliptical cylinder (B/D = 0.6, under uniform flow) are made
for h = 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° and are shown in Fig. 8. Except for h = 0°, for all
other angles of incidence, the values of mean suction coefficients reported in the
literature [3] are found to be higher than those values obtained from the present
study, whereas the values of mean positive pressure coefficients reported in the
literature [3] are found to be less than those values obtained from the present study.
The above differences could be due to 3-D flow effects in the present study.

Fig. 8 Comparison on
variation of mean pressure
coefficients for h = 0°, 30°,
60°, and 90°
290 A. Abraham et al.

3.2 Mean Force/Torsion Coefficients

Comparison on variation of mean Cd and Cl between the present study and on long
elliptical cylinder reported in the literature [11] and on 2-D elliptical cylinder
reported elsewhere [3] are made and are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. The results
plotted in Fig. 9 as the variation of mean drag force coefficients are obtained by
substituting the evaluated values of mean Cd for h = 0° and 90° in the empirical
relation given in the literature [11]. From Fig. 9, it is found that the values of mean
Cd are minimum at 0° and maximum at 90°; i.e., values of mean Cd increase with
change in angle of wind incidence from 0° to 90°. The value of mean Cd reported in
[3] for 0° is 0.43, which is found to be relatively higher than those evaluated values
under both the terrain conditions and the value obtained using the empirical relation
given in the literature [11]. For h = 90°, the evaluated values and the value obtained
using the empirical relation given in the literature [11] are found to be relatively less
than the value reported in [3].
Comparison on variation of mean Cl is shown in Fig. 10. The results plotted in
Fig. 10 as the variation of mean lift force coefficients are obtained by substituting
the evaluated values of mean Cl for h = 45° in the empirical relation given in the
literature [11]. From Fig. 10, it is observed that the values of mean Cl reported in
the literature [3, 11] and the evaluated values are found to be 0 for 0° and 90°. The
values of mean Cl increase with change in angle of wind incidence up to a certain
angle of wind incidence and beyond which it decreases with change in angle of
wind incidence. The maximum values of mean Cl reported in [11] and [3] are found
to be 0.47 (h = 45°) and 0.41 (h = 50°), respectively, whereas from the present
study under open and suburban terrain conditions, it is observed to be 0.49 and 0.53
(h = 40°), respectively.

Fig. 9 Comparison on
variation of mean drag force
coefficients

Fig. 10 Comparison on
variation of mean lift force
coefficients
Wind Tunnel Investigations on a Tall Building … 291

Table 1 Comparison on Description h = 0° h = 90°

mean drag force coefficients
IS:875 [7] 0:2 0:95
AS/NZS:1170.2 [8] 0:3 1:5
Present study (both terrains) 0.1 1.05

3.3 Comparison Between Present Study and Codes

of Practice

Comparison on values of mean Cd between the present study and the values
reported in codes of practice [7, 8] are made and are given in Table 1 for h = 0° and
90°, respectively. From Table 1 for h = 0°, it is found that the evaluated value of
mean Cd is 50 and 67% less than those values reported in codes of practice [7, 8].
For h = 90°, the evaluated value of mean Cd is 10% higher than the value reported
in [7], whereas the evaluated value is 30% less than the value reported in [8], which
corresponds to individual members with aspect ratio  40.

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

Wind tunnel experiments were conducted on a tall building model (scale of 1:300)
with elliptical cross section having major and minor axis of 20 cm and 10 cm with
height of 70 cm under suburban terrain for 13 different angles of wind incidence of
0° (wind normal to minor axis), 10°, 15°, 25°, 30°, 40°, 45°, 50°, 60°, 70°, 75°, 80°,
and 90° (wind normal to major axis). The model was instrumented with pressure
ports in the circumferential direction at eight levels along the height of model,
denoted as level 1–8 corresponding to the height ratio of z/H = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5,
0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 0.95, respectively. The datasets were acquired at a sampling
frequency of 700 samples/sec/channel for a sampling duration of 15 s. Static
pressure data had been collected by a pitot tube placed at 70 cm height. The
measured pressures were processed (using MATLAB script) to obtain statistical
parameters of aerodynamic pressure/force coefficients with respect to measurement
level. The results obtained from the present study are compared with the earlier
wind tunnel pressure measurement study carried out on the same model with same
instrumentation scheme under open terrain. Further, the results obtained from the
present wind tunnel study are compared with those reported in the literature/codes
of practice. Based on the comparison study, the following concluding remarks are
made:
• In general, the variation of mean pressure coefficients is found to be different for
different angle of wind incidence. The variation of mean pressure coefficients
under open and suburban terrain conditions for all the angles of wind incidence
is similar but varying in magnitudes.
292 A. Abraham et al.

• The mean pressure distribution around the ellipse is symmetric about major axis
for h = 0° and about minor axis for h = 90°. The values of mean pressure
coefficients at stagnation points at all levels are found to be unity. In the wake
region, the magnitude of suction pressure coefficients for h = 0° is relatively less
than those magnitudes for h = 90°, due to large wake created behind the model.
Hence, the scatter in mean pressure coefficients is insignificant at the windward
region, whereas more scatter is observed in wake region along the height. This is
applicable for both open and suburban terrain conditions.
• As the angle of wind incidence progresses from h = 0° to 30°, the difference
between the variation of mean pressure coefficients (both positive and negative)
obtained at most of the levels under open and suburban terrain conditions found
similar except at bottom and top levels.
• As the angle of incidence progresses further, the magnitudes of mean suction
coefficients under open terrain up to level 3 found to be relatively higher than
those under suburban terrain in the circumferential length between 21.023 and
47.301 cm.
• At level 4, the variation of mean pressure coefficients under open terrain equal to
the variation under suburban terrain over the entire circumferential length of the
model.
• As the level progresses from level 4 to top level, the magnitudes of mean
pressure coefficients obtained under suburban terrain are found to be relatively
higher than those for open terrain in the circumferential length between
21.023 cm and 47.301 cm.
• The component of force acted in Y axis is mostly contributing to drag and it
increases with increase in angle of wind incidence, as observed under both
terrain conditions.
• The variation of mean lift/torsion coefficients peaks at 30°, which could be a
critical angle of wind incidence, as observed under both terrain conditions.
• The variation of mean drag/lift force and torsion coefficients obtained at levels 4
and 8 found to well compare under both the terrain conditions.
• At level 1, the values of mean drag/lift force and torsion coefficients correspond
to suburban terrain found to be higher than those for open terrain in the range of
h = 60° to 90°, 20° to 80°, and 10° to 60°, respectively.
• Based on the comparison on mean suction coefficients between evaluated values
and values reported in literature, the evaluated values are found to be less than
those values reported in the literature for the angles of wind incidence examined.
• Based on the comparison on mean drag force coefficients between evaluated
values and values reported in codes of practice, the values reported in codes of
practice are found to be conservative.

Acknowledgements This full length paper is published with kind permission of Director,
CSIR-SERC, Chennai. First author thanks all the staff of Wind Engg. Lab., for their suggestions
and successful conduct of experiment.
Wind Tunnel Investigations on a Tall Building … 293

References

1. Tall and Urban: An analysis of global population and tall buildings. Counc Tall Build Urban
Habitat J Issue II (2011)
2. Alonso G, Meseguer J, Sanz-Andrés A, Valero E (2010) On the galloping instability of
two-dimensional bodies having elliptical cross-sections. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 98(8–
9):438–448
3. Wiland E (1968) Unsteady aerodynamics of stationary elliptic cylinder in subcritical flow, M.
A. Sc. Dissertation
4. Fonseca FB, Mansur SS, Vieira EDR (2013) Flow around elliptical cylinders in moderate
Reynolds numbers. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international congress of mechanical
engineering, November 3–7, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil, pp 4089–4100
5. Tamura Y, Tanaka H, Ohtake K, Nakai M, Kim Y (2010) Aerodynamic characteristics of tall
building models with various unconventional configurations. In: Proceedings of the structures
congress, May 12–15, Orlando, Florida, pp 3104–3113
6. Franek M, Konečná L, Hubová O, Žilinský J (2016) Experimental pressure measurement on
elliptic cylinder. Appl Mech Mater 820:332–337
7. IS: 875 (part 3)-1987 (1989) Code of practice for design loads (other than Earthquake) for
buildings and structures—Part 3: Wind loads, BIS
8. AS/NZS: 1170.2:2011 (2011) Structural design actions, Part 2: Wind actions, Australian/New
Zealand Standard
9. Afreen SA, Abraham A, Selvi Rajan S, Iyer NR, Gomez SM (2015) Wind tunnel pressure
measurement studies on a tall building with elliptic cross-section: effect of angle of wind
incidence. In: Proceedings of the international conference on innovations in structural
engineering, December 14–16, Hyderabad, India, pp 109–128
10. Abraham A, Harikrishna P, Selvi Rajan S, Ramesh Babu G, Chitra Ganapathi S, Keerthana M
(2016) Wind tunnel pressure measurement studies on 1:2:7 elliptic building model.
CSIR-SERC research report no. R&D 01-MLP 18741-RR-04, March 2016
11. Cook NJ (1990) The designer’s guide to wind loading of building structures, Part 2 static
structures. Butterworths, London