See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354358248

CFD Simulation for Wind Loads on Multi–span Flat Canopy Roofs

Chapter · January 2022

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-80312-4_79

CITATION READS

1 258

2 authors:

Ajay Pratap Neelam Rani

National Institute of Technology Jalandhar National Institute of Technology Jalandhar
10 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ajay Pratap on 19 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CFD Simulation for Wind Loads on Multi–span Flat
Canopy Roofs
Ajay Pratap1, Neelam Rani2
1
Research Scholar, Dr. B R Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar
2 Assistant Professor, Dr. B R Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar
ajayp.ce.19@nitj.ac.in, ranin@nitj.ac.in

Abstract.This paper presents the numerical simulations on multi-span flat can-

opy roof using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) technique. Experiment has
been performed for the single span canopy structure in the open circuit boundary
layer wind tunnel at IIT Roorkee, India in which 1:50 reduced scaled model size
of 300 mm × 150 mm × 75 mm is used. The commercially available ANSYS
FLUENT software is used for the CFD simulation. Realizable k-ε turbulent
model is used for the pressure and velocity distribution around the building. At-
mospheric boundary layer velocity profile obtained from the numerical studies
are validated with the experimental studies. The pressure coefficient obtained
from the CFD simulations on the upper and lower surface of flat canopy roof at
0°, 45°, 60° and 90° wind incidence angle are compared with the experimental
results. Further, pressure coefficients are measured for multi span flat canopy
roofs at varying wind incidence angle. It was concluded that multi-span canopy
roof surface has low-pressure coefficients and better chances of survival than the
single span canopy roof surface building.

Keywords: CFD, Flat canopy roof, k-ε turbulence model, pressure coefficients.

1 Introduction

Canopy structure are supported by columns only with no wall cladding having different
roof shapes such as flat, mono-slope, circular or trough type. [1] reviewed on the wind
load on the free-standing canopy roof for mono-slope and duo pitch roof. [2] deter-
mined the behavior of lift force and drag force for a range of the porous hip, gable and
mono-slope canopy roof forms. The codal information available by various countries
[3]–[5] on the flat canopy roofs is very limited.
Computational fluid dynamics now a days is used to evaluate the effect of wind on
structures as an alternative to wind tunnel testing [6], [7]. Numerical simulation tech-
nique CFD is used to calculate the complex behaviour of fluid flow by solving the
governing Navier-Stokes equations for the fluid flow. From literature it is observed that
most of the numerical and experimental studied has been performed on low rise build-
ings with single span roof and very few studies have been performed on the multi span
canopy roof [8][9]. Numerical validation of pressure coefficient of single span flat can-
opy roof is performed in this paper. Further the behaviour of wind on single, double
2

and three span flat canopy roof structure for different wind incidence angle compared
with each other.

2 Experimental Setup

The experiments are carried out in open circuit boundary layer wind tunnel at the De-
partment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India. Proto-
type building with flat roof have rectangular plan of size 15 m × 7.5 m and eaves height
above the ground as 3.75 m. Model of flat canopy roof is made of Perspex sheet at a
scale of 1:50 having plan dimension of 300 mm × 150 mm and 75mm height (H) is
used for the experiment of single span flat canopy roof [10]. Power-law velocity profile
is used in the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) to define the velocity profile inside
the wind tunnel which is shown below see “Eq. 1”:
𝑧 𝛼
𝑣 = 𝑣0 ( ) (1)
𝑧0

Where, Z is the height above ground level; 𝑣 denotes the mean wind speed at a height
of Z meter above ground; 𝑣0 denotes the mean wind speed at the reference height of Zo
m above ground and α is the power law coefficient. Wind pressure are measured at all
pressure points on both top and bottom surfaces of surfaces of the model for 0°, 45°, 60°
and 90° wind incidence angles see Fig. 1. From “Eq. 2”, mean pressure coefficient is
calculated from the measured pressure values as:

𝐶𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 = 𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 /0 ⋅ 6(𝑣)2 (2)

Where, Pmeasured = wind pressure measure at pressure points in N/m 2, 𝑣 = reference
wind velocity at the eave height of the model 6.21 m/sec.

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. (a)Single span flat canopy roof model at 0° wind incident angle inside the wind tunnel
and (b) Different wind incident angle representation on model
3

3 Numerical Simulation

Computational Fluid Dynamics technique is used for the numerical simulation of wind
flow on the building models. Commercially available Ansys Fluent software is used to
perform the steady Reynolds Average Navier-Stokes’s computations based on the Fi-
nite volume method approach for solving flow equations.

3.1 Computational Domain and meshing

In the pre-processing step the geometry of flat canopy roof structure is created as the
solid body and the computational domain is created as the fluid body. The dimension
of solid body model is selected according to experimental model dimensions. For the
flow of air inside the domain an inlet surface is created and for the outflow of air outlet
surface is created. [11],[12] provided the minimum spacing of model from the inlet is
5H to satisfy the atmospheric boundary flow and to avoid backflow at the outlet spacing
should be greater than 15H. The dimensions of the computational domain are i.e., L ×
B × H = 1.6 × 1.1 × 0.6 m3 as shown schematically in Fig. 2.

Inlet 6H
Sidewall
5H
5H
Outlet
5 15 H
Sidewall

Fig. 2. Isometric view of Computational Domain

(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Isometric view of (a)Domain meshing and (b) model meshing
4

Tetrahedral element method is used for the meshing of the computational domain and
for the surface of canopy. The mesh size has been kept very fine for the model in order
to provide the adequate fluid flow at high gradient region. The mesh should be suffi-
ciently fine to achieve the numerical accuracy and resolved the important flow features.
The size of mesh for the model is 2 mm for the entire surfaces and 30 mm for the surface
of computational domain (see Fig. 3).

3.2 Turbulence model

The fluid flowing inside domain is assumed to be turbulent and to study the effect of
turbulence there are different types of model available in the ANSYS FLUENT Solver.
As per the literature the most suitable model used to solve the turbulence is Realizable
k-ε turbulence model suggested by [13] is very useful in estimating flow separation,
reattachment and recirculation of flow around the structure. This model consists of two
additional transport equation which solve the turbulent kinetic energy (k) and turbulent
dissipation rate (ε).

3.3 Boundary Condition

For the actual behavior of fluid flow inside the fluid domain adequate boundary condi-
tions should be provided. The inlet surface of the domain is used as the windward side
and the velocity profile is used similar to the wind tunnel experiment. The velocity and
turbulence intensity profiles found from the wind tunnel experiment has been utilized
in the numerical simulation [10]. Curve fitting technique is used in excel for the exper-
imental velocity and turbulence intensity profile which is used to define the user defined
function (UDF). Logarithmic trend line for the velocity profile V=1.8679ln(Z)+10.43
and exponential trend line for the turbulence intensity (T.I) profile I=0.024×(Z)-0.451
is obtained from the curve fitting. The measured velocity and turbulence intensity (T.I)
profiled associated with the k-ε turbulence equation model are proposed to define tur-
bulence kinetic energy (k) and turbulence dissipation rate (ε) equation profiles as given
by [14] .The defined UDF is compiled and used as the velocity-inlet in assigning bound-
ary at inlet. On the leeward side of domain, an outlet pressure is used, in which the
relative pressure is specified at 0 Pa and for to avoid backflow K and ε UDF is set
similar to those used in inlet. The boundary constraint used for the side and top walls
of domain as slip condition and no slip condition is used for the surfaces of the model
and bottom wall of the domain.

3.4 Solver setting

Finite volume method technique is selected for CFD simulation in Ansys Fluent to
solve the governing differential equation at various nodes of model and to solve the
problems associated with the applied boundary conditions for the fluid domain. Second
order differencing schemes is used for solving the pressure, momentum and turbulence
equations generated due to fluid flow inside the domain and “coupled” pressure-veloc-
ity coupling approach is used to solve single-phase flow problems due to its robustness
5

for steady-state The residuals fell below the commonly applied criteria of falling to 10 -
4
of their initial values after several hundred iterations [15].

4 Numerical Validation

For the post processing unit, CFD post is used in ANSYS Fluent CFD simulation. The
velocity profile obtained from the CFD simulation near the model is validated with the
experimental measured profiles and the values are found close to each other as repre-
sented in Fig. 4. The wind pressure coefficient contours values obtained from the nu-
merical studies is validated with the experimental values for 0°, 45°, 60° and 90° wind
incident angles for top and bottom surfaces of single span flat canopy models as shown
in Fig. 5−Fig. 8. From the numerical and experimental studies, it is found that maximum
wind pressure coefficient generated at the windward surface and decreases as it moves
towards leeward surface edge of the model. The pressure coefficient values on the top
roof surface are greater as compared to lower surfaces because of the formation of
strong wake region on the top surface of the roof. The wind turbulence effect is more
at the edges of the windward side when wind strikes the structure and forms a wake
region which produces negative wind pressure coefficient i.e., suction pressure. It is
observed from numerical and experimental studies that the maximum negative pressure
coefficient i.e., suction effect is more when wind flows with an angle of 45° (Cp =
−2.25) and 60° (Cp = −2.31) as compared to 0° and 90° because of high turbulence
is produced for oblique wind flow. The contour line of pressure coefficient formed at
the windward edges of roof surfaces are denser and for oblique wind flow pressure
coefficient are denser at the adjacent edges and less dense towards leeward surface side.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Height (m)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 Experimental
0.1 Numerical
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Velocity (m/s)
Fig.4. Experimental and numerical validation of Velocity Profile inside wind tunnel
6

0°

(a-i) (b-i) 45° (a-ii) (b-ii)

Fig. 5. Wind pressure coefficient contours obtained (a) experimentally (b) Numerically on upper
surface of single span canopy roof at (i) 0° and (ii) 45° wind incidence angle.

90°
60° (a-i) (b-i) (a-ii) (b-ii)
Fig. 6. Wind pressure coefficient contours obtained (a) experimentally (b) Numerically on upper
surface of single span canopy roof at (i) 60° and (ii) 90° wind incidence angle.

0°

45°
(a-i) (b-i) (a-ii) (b-ii)
Fig. 7. Wind pressure coefficient contours obtained (a) experimentally (b) Numerically on lower
surface of single span canopy roof at (i) 0° and (ii) 45° wind incidence angle.
7

60° 90°

(a-i) (b-i) (a-ii) (b-ii)

Fig. 8. Wind pressure coefficient contours obtained (a) experimentally (b) Numerically on lower
surface of single span canopy roof at (i) 0° and (ii) 45° wind incidence angle.

5 Wind effect study on multi-span canopy roof surfaces

This study deals only with the effect of wind on the top surface of multi-span flat can-
opy roof structure for 0°, 45°, 60° and 90° wind angle and compared with each other
and with the experimental observation on the single span canopy roof structure. Multi-
span structure consists of two and three span canopy roof structure adjacent to each
other with no spacing and the effect of wind flowing on this structure has been studied.
The maximum value of negative pressure coefficient (suction) obtained on the upper
surfaces of canopy structure from the numerical studies is shown in the form of graph-
ical representation see Fig. 9. For the model with 0° wind angle, the edges of the wind-
ward surface show the highest negative pressure (suction) (Cp = − 1.85) for single
span canopy roof surface. For the 45° and 60° wind angle the negative pressure in-
creases as compared to 0° wind angle for single and multi-span model. The maximum
negative pressure coefficient (Cp = −2.54) value is obtained at the corner edges of
two span canopy towards windward surfaces and least pressure coefficient is observed
for three span model. For the model with a 90° wind angle, the edges of the windward
surface show the highest negative pressure coefficient (Cp = − 1.90) in case of single
span while for the remaining span roof surfaces the pressure coefficient values de-
creases and a minimum negative pressure coefficient (Cp = − 1.69) is observed for
three span canopy roof surface model. For all wind incident angle on the surfaces of
flat canopy roof model negative pressure coefficient is observed from windward sur-
faces to leeward surfaces and pressure coefficient values decrease respectively.
8

0
Experimental Single span
Numerical Single span
-0.5 Numerical Double span
Numerical Triple span
Pressure coeffcient

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Wind angle (°)
Fig. 9. Experimental and Numerical result of wind pressure coefficient on upper surface for sin-
gle, double, three span canopy roofs for wind incidence angle 0°, 45°, 60° and 90°

6 Conclusions

The effect of wind on the surface of single, double and three span canopy roofs for the
wind incident angle of 0°, 45°, 60° and 90° have been investigated in this study to
determine the wind pressure coefficient. The realizable k–ε turbulence modelling tech-
nique applied numerical simulation using CFD approach holds in good agreement with
the experimental result and capable of simulating turbulence effect inside wind tunnel.
It is found from numerical and experimental studies of single span flat canopy roof that
the maximum negative pressure coefficient i.e., suction increases by approximately
20% when wind flows obliquely at an angle of 45° and 60° as compared to 0° and 90°.
The high suction effect is developed at the windward edge of both top and bottom roof
surfaces for each wind incidence angles. The pressure coefficient values decrease by
more than 35% for lower surfaces when compared with the values on the top surface of
flat canopy roof. The pressure coefficient contour line formed on the windward edges
of roof surfaces are denser and for oblique wind flow pressure coefficient are denser at
the adjacent edges and less dense towards leeward surface side. As the number of spans
increases the maximum wind pressure coefficient value is observed to be decreased by
approximately 18% for 60° wind incident angle in case of three span flat canopy roof
and the suction pressure value on it is also low for remaining wind incidence angle.
There is reduction in the wake region formation in case of multi-span canopy roof.
Multi-span flat canopy roof surface has less value of pressure coefficients so, its
chances of damage is very less against wind load comparing to the single span canopy
roof surface building.
 9

References

[1] Y. UEMATSU and T. STATHOPOULOS, “Wind loads on free-standing

canopy roofs: A REVIEW,” J. Wind Eng., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 95_245-95_256,
2003.
[2] C. W. Letchford, A. Row, A. Vitale, and J. Wolbers, “Mean wind loads on
porous canopy roofs,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 197–213,
Jan. 2000.
[3] “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures,” ASCE 7-98 Stand.
Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. New York, 2013.
[4] BSI BS 6399, “Loading for Buildings-Part2,” Code Pract. Wind loads, Br.
Stand. Inst., p., 1997.
[5] B. of I. Standards, “IS 875: Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than
Earthquake) for Building and Structures - Part 3 : Wind Loads,” BIS, New
Delhi. p. 51, 2015.
[6] A. K. Roy, J. Singh, S. K. Sharma, and S.K. Verma, “Wind pressure variation
on pyramidal roof of rectangular and pentagonal plan low rise building through
CFD simulation,” Int. Conf. Adv. Constr. Mater. Struct., no. February, pp. 1–
10, 2018.
[7] J. Singh and A. K. Roy, “CFD simulation of the wind field around pyramidal
roofed single-story buildings,” SN Appl. Sci., vol. 1, no. 11, p. 1425, Nov. 2019.
[8] P. C. Case and N. Isyumov, “Wind loads on low buildings with 4 : 12 gable
roofs in open country and suburban exposures,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.,
vol. 77–78, pp. 107–118, 1998.
[9] T. Stathopoulos, K. Suresh Kumar, and A. R. Mohammadian, “Design wind
pressure coefficients for monoslope roofs: A time series approach,” J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., vol. 65, no. 1–3, pp. 143–153, 1996.
[10] N. Rani, “Wind Pressure Distribution on Multi-span Canopy Roofs,” Ph.D.
Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering. I.I.T. Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 2018.
[11] N. Franke et.al., “Recommendations on the use of cfd in wind engineering,” in
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Urban Wind Engineering
and Building Aerodynamics, 2004, p. C.1.1-C1.11.
[12] J. Revuz, D. M. Hargreaves, and J. S. Owen, “On the domain size for the
steady-state CFD modelling of a tall building,” Wind Struct., vol. 15, no. 4, pp.
313–329, Jul. 2012.
[13] T.-H. Shih, W. W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang, and J. Zhu, “A new k-ϵ eddy
viscosity model for high reynolds number turbulent flows,” Comput. Fluids,
vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 227–238, Mar. 1995.
[14] P. . Richards and R. . Hoxey, “Appropriate boundary conditions for
computational wind engineering models using the k-ϵ turbulence model,” J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., vol. 46–47, pp. 145–153, Aug. 1993.
[15] N. S. Fouad, G. H. Mahmoud, and N. E. Nasr, “Comparative study of
international codes wind loads and CFD results for low rise buildings,”
Alexandria Eng. J., vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 3623–3639, 2018.

View publication stats