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

net/publication/281718999

Wind flow over the low-rise building models with gabled roofs having
different pitch angles

Article in Building and Environment · September 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.09.014

CITATIONS READS

96 3,221

3 authors:

Yucel Ozmen Ertan Baydar

Karadeniz Technical University Karadeniz Technical University
12 PUBLICATIONS 343 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 342 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jeroen van Beeck

von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics
172 PUBLICATIONS 3,362 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yucel Ozmen on 04 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Wind flow over the low-rise building models with gabled roofs having
different pitch angles
Y. Ozmen a, *, E. Baydar a, J.P.A.J. van Beeck b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon 61080, Turkey
b
Environmental and Applied Fluid Dynamics Department, von Karman Institute, Brussels B-1640, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, the turbulent flow fields on the low-rise building models with gabled roofs having different
Received 3 June 2015 pitch angles immersed in atmospheric boundary layer have been investigated experimentally and
Received in revised form numerically. The models of the Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI) test building with a scale of
28 August 2015
1:100 were studied with 15
, 30
and 45
roof pitches for the wind direction of 90
. Flow visualization,
Accepted 9 September 2015
Available online 12 September 2015
measurements of velocity and surface pressure around the models placed in wind tunnel were made. 3D
solutions of the flow fields were obtained with two different turbulence models. The mean velocity and
turbulence kinetic energy profiles are influenced by the roof pitch. Recirculation regions occur on the
Keywords:
Gable roof
leeward part of roofs and at the behind of the models due to flow separation. These regions are much
Roof pitch stronger and spread up to the roof ridge with increasing roof pitch. Largest values of turbulence kinetic
Low-rise building energy for entire flow field occur at height of the roof level and they prove the presence of the mixing
Wind tunnel experiment layer between the free stream flow and reverse flow region. It is seen from the surface mean pressure
Turbulence modeling distributions that the 15
roof pitch causes more critical suction on the roofs than those of the 30
and
45
roof pitches. The numerical results shows that Realizable k-ε turbulence model exhibit better
agreement at the prediction mean velocity and turbulence kinetic energy while Standard k-u turbulence
models exhibit better agreement at the prediction of mean pressures coefficients.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The flow fields over the three-dimensional surface mounted
building models are dominated by flow separation. This event has a
great deal of importance in large number of applications such as the
effects of surface roughness on boundary layer characteristics, wind
loads on structures, and dispersion of pollutants emitted from
conventional and nuclear power plants. The loading effects of the
natural wind on buildings are rather complicated interactive pro-
cess between the wind flow and the various components of the
building. Damage to the buildings results from aerodynamic wind
pressure that develop as air flow over and around the building.
Depending on the past damage investigation reports [1], most of
the wind damage was on the envelope of buildings, in particular at
the roof sheathing. For this reason, a detailed understanding about
the wind effects on low-rise buildings, and in particular, on roof
sheathing is necessary. Wind tunnel experimentation plays an
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yozmen@ktu.edu.tr (Y. Ozmen).
important role in the evaluation of design roof wind loads. Several
fundamental experiments carried out with three-dimensional bluff
bodies to better understand the flow structure around the build-
ings. These experiments attempted to define the effect of various
parameters of the approach flow like the turbulence intensity and
its scale on the surface pressure distributions. An experimental
investigation of the flow around surface mounted cubes in both
laminar and turbulent flows was conducted by Castro and Robins
[2]. They presented the measurements of body surface pressures
and mean and turbulence velocities within the recirculation re-
gions which result from the flow separation. Castro [3] investigated
the dynamics of the shear layer separating from the front edge of
two dimensional, surface mounted, square sectioned blocks. He
concluded that as the thickness of the upstream boundary layer
increases, the shear layer grows more rapidly and moves down-
wards. Holmes [4] described the variation of the flow separation
associated with the flow turbulence. He indicated that the turbu-
lence characteristics in the flow have strong influence on the roof
wind loads. Fackrell [5] studied the roof flow behavior and the
resulting nature of the separated region downstream of the body.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.09.014
0360-1323/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
64 Y. Ozmen et al. / Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74
Atli [6] measured the mean and turbulence velocities around sur-
face mounted flat plates and visualized the surface flow using the
oil technique. He showed that the height of the plate thickness of
the boundary layer and Reynolds number are the parameters,
which affect the flow field and structure of turbulence. Agui and
Andreopoulos [7] concluded from the pressure fluctuation mea-
surements that the large scale structures play an important role in
the dynamics of separated flow. Ginger and Letchford [8] conducted
point and area-averaged pressure measurements on a building roof
with a scale of 1:100 immersed in a simulated suburban atmo-
spheric surface layer in wind tunnel. They noted that large
magnitude mean and fluctuating pressures were measured within
regions of flow separation on low rise building roofs. Baydar and
Onur [9] investigated the flow field around the obstacles immersed
in boundary layer experimentally and numerically. They found that
flow separated leading edge of the obstacle attaches to the top
surface of the obstacle for L > 4H. Becker et al. [10] investigated the
structure of the flow field around three-dimensional obstacles for
different aspect ratios (wall length to wall width), in two different
types of boundary layers in wind tunnel. They found that the flow
structure around the obstacle is affected from aspect ratio, the
angle of attack, the Reynolds number, and the type of boundary
layer. A review of existing and new considerations for the assess-
ment of wind loads on low-rise structures from wind tunnel ex-
periments is presented by Tieleman [11]. Sousa and Pereira [12]
investigated the effect of a gable roof (30
roof pitch) in the mean
and turbulent flow structure around a surface-mounted cubic
obstacle by the use of a 2D-DPIV (Digital Particle Image Velocim-
etry) system. They noted that the addition of a gable roof to the
cubic obstacle has a strong impact both in the mean and turbulent
flow fields. An experimental study using PIV (Particle Image
Velocimetry) to quantify the characteristics of a tornado-like vortex
and to reveal the dynamics of the flow-structure interactions be-
tween a low-rise, gable-roof building model and swirling tornado
like winds was conducted by Hu et al. [13]. The wind loads acting on
the gable-roof building model in tornado-like winds were found to
be at least 3 times higher compared with those in a straight-line,
atmospheric boundary layer wind at all the compared orientation
angles. Mahmood [14] carried out an experimental study on 1:100
scale models of TTU (Texas Tech University) Test Building in a wind
tunnel under different flow conditions. He conducted flow visual-
ization, flow and turbulence measurements and pressure mea-
surements on both sharp-edged and round-edged models and
found that the type of edge affected the turbulent levels and flow
characteristics. Kim and Tamura [15] investigated the effect of
incident flows on the wind loads and their combinations effects on
a target low-rise building. They found that the pressure coefficients
of the isolated model differ significantly depending on the incident
flows. Tominaga et al. [16] experimentally and numerically inves-
tigated the flow fields around isolated gable roof buildings with
different roof pitches. They found good agreement between
measured values and simulation results for streamwise velocity
profiles in front of buildings. Flowe and Kumar [17] solved the flow
fields around the various 3D building shapes by using Standard k-ε
turbulence model with FLUENT. They concluded that the length of
reverse flow region is a function of building dimensions. Oliveira
and Younis [18] computed the flow field around a building with
gable roof by using Standard k-ε and Reynolds Stress turbulence
models. They found that the use of a Reynolds-stress closure en-
ables the prediction of flow separation on the windward side of the
roof while no flow separation is obtained with the Standard k-ε
model. Tutar and Oguz [19] investigated the effects of wind flow
around a group of buildings with different wind directions and
building arrangements by using large eddy simulation. The
numeric results show that the large eddy simulation with the finite
volume method is more successful to calculate the wind effects on
buildings than conventional turbulence models. Lien et al. [20] used
four different k-ε turbulence-closure models applied with wall
functions to calculate the disturbed mean flow and turbulence
through and above an array of two-dimensional buildings. They
found that the non-linear k-ε model give the best performance
among four different turbulence closure models examined. Flow
field around a cube using Standard k-ε turbulence model is
numerically predicted by Gao and Chew [21]. They examined the
linkage between reverse flow region and turbulence kinetic energy.
Virk and Holdo [22] numerically analyzed flow field around a low-
rise pitched roof church building with a spirelet using Standard k-ε
turbulence model. Results revealed that lifting up of roof tiles is due
to the presence of a localized low pressure and swirling turbulent
flow near the spirelet section of the church.
When the current literature is examined, it is seen that studies
of pressure distributions on the roofs contains almost all existent
studies. The studies related to determine the velocity fields are
really inconsiderable. However, it is known that the pressure dis-
tributions are directly affected from separated flow regions. This
study aims to show the relation between the reverse flow regions
and the critical pressures on the roofs by determining the velocity
and turbulence profiles and pressure distributions on the roofs.
This study clarifies the relationship between velocity and pressure
distributions as different from previous studies in this field.
2. Experimental study
The experiments carried out in a low speed, open circuit L-2B
wind tunnel at von Karman Institute. The wind tunnel has a
working section of 350 mm wide, 350 mm high and 2000 mm long.
The combination of vortex generators and roughness elements at
the entrance to the test section is used to simulate atmospheric
boundary layer [23]. A turbulent boundary layer of 150 mm thick-
ness is obtained at the free stream velocity (Uo) of 15 m/s, giving a
Reynolds number based on building height of Re ¼ 40000. Fig. 1
indicates a schematic diagram of the wind tunnel test-section.
d and H represent the boundary layer thickness and characteristic
height of models, respectively. The ratio of boundary layer thick-
ness to model height (d/H) is 3.75. A smoke-wire technique is used
to visualize the flow structure around models. A 0.2 mm diameter
stainless steel wire is vertically located at the entrance of test
section. Before each test the smoke-wire was coated by paraffin oil
and then heated by Joule effect of DC current. The flow pattern
visualized is photographed successively by a video camera. Flow
visualization is performed at Re ¼ 5000 since this technique is
limited to the small Reynolds numbers. The mean velocity, turbu-
lence and mean surface pressure measurements conducted with
the measurement chain systems as shown in Fig. 2. Mean velocity
and turbulence measurements are obtained together with TSI IFA-
100 hot-wire anemometer interfaced to a data acquisition system
using TSI 1211 hot wire probe. The probe is calibrated with TSI
Model 1125 calibration apparatus. Anemometer system consisted
of a constant temperature anemometer, a hot wire probe with
support and cable, connector box, A/D board and computer. A two
dimensional traversing holds the probe in the streamwise and cross
flow direction. Pitot tube is used to measure free stream velocity at
the entrance to the test section. During the experiments, the ve-
locity signals are sampled using DAS20 data acquisition system.
Each point was taken 8192 data samples. All signals were filtered at
300 Hz, and sampled at 1000 Hz. A difficulty in the anemometer
arises when the flow reverses its direction which is the case in the
present study. The mean velocity output of the anemometer is al-
ways positive, that is, the output of an anemometer does not
indicate the flow direction. The reverse flow in the recirculation
 Y. Ozmen et al. / Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74 65

Fig. 1. Wind tunnel test section.

Fig. 2. Velocity and pressure measurement system.

region was identified with an increase and then a decrease in the
output voltage of the anemometer. The necessary corrections are
applied in these regions and the details can be found in Atli [6]. The
mean surface pressure measurement is conducted with a mea-
surement chain system consisting of the components of signal
conditional module, Setra 239 pressure transducer, A/D converter,
package and computer. The output of the pressure transducer is fed
through a signal conditioning unit before being digitized and
recorded. The signals from the transducer are sampled at a rate of
1000 samples per second for a period of 16 s and data are low-pass
filtered at 300 Hz. To measure pressure distributions on the models,
pressure taps of 15 mm long pieces with 1.6 mm external diameter
and 1 mm internal diameter stainless-steel tubing are inserted into
the holes drilled in the plexiglas. A scanning valve with 48 port is
used to supply linkage from pressure taps to pressure transducer.
All pressure taps are connected to the scanning valve using the
vinyl tubing of 60 cm lengths and 1 mm inside diameter.
Dimensions of gabled roof building models and the locations of
pressure taps are shown in Fig. 3. Models are constructed with a
1:100 geometric scale of the BBRI (Belgian Building Research
Institute) experimental building. The models with gable roofs of
15
, 30
, and 45
roof pitch (a) made of plexiglas have H ¼ 40 mm
height, W ¼ 50 mm width and L ¼ 100 mm length. The aspect ratio
of the building models was chosen as 2:1. The height of the wall is
40 mm for all the three building models. The models are placed at a
distance of 4H from the reference boundary layer. As stated by
Oliveira and Younis [18], this distance must be at least 3H because
reference boundary layer must not be affected from existence of
model. The blockage ratio for the models in the wind tunnel ranged
from 3.8 to 5.3%. Correction for the effect of the wind tunnel
blockage is also done.
The uncertainties in the measurements of the axial mean ve-
locity and axial turbulence velocity were estimated to be less than
±2.07% and ±4%, respectively. Mean pressure has a corresponding
66 Y. Ozmen et al. / Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74

Fig. 3. Dimensions of gabled roof building models and the locations of pressure taps (a) a ¼ 15
(b) a ¼ 30
(c) a ¼ 45
.

estimated uncertainty of ±3.06% (Holman [24], Kline and McClin- steady-state and Newtonian with temperature-dependent fluid
tock [25]). The experimental results were reproducible within these properties. A numerical solution of the mean flow field requires
uncertainty ranges. resolving the Reynolds averaged NaviereStokes equations. These
equations for incompressible and continuity flow in Cartesian
tensor form can be written as given below,mass continuity:
3. Numerical study
v
ðrui Þ ¼ 0 (1)
3.1. Mathematical model vxi

In the present study, it is assumed that the air flow is turbulent, momentum:
 Y. Ozmen et al. / Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74 67

" !# diffusion for k and u and Yk and Yu represent the dissipation of k

v
 vP v vui vuj 2 vui and u due to turbulence. Sk and Su are the source terms for k and u.
rui uj ¼  þ m þ  d
vxj vxi vxj vxj vxi 3 ij vxj
  (2)
v 3.2. Flow field and boundary conditions
þ  ru0i u0j
vxj
A schematic of computational domain is shown in Fig. 4 where
the flow field, the main dimensions and the prescribed boundary
where, the term ðru0i u0j Þ is the Reynolds stress, defined as
conditions are specified. The boundary conditions on the models
!   surfaces and the bottom and upper surfaces of domain are
vui vuj 2 vu
ru0i u0j ¼ mt þ  rk þ mt i dij (3) considered as wall. No slip assumption used for wall shear condi-
vxj vxi 3 vxi tion. The mean velocity and turbulence profiles measured at
reference boundary layer are used as velocity inlet conditions of
A lot of improved and improving turbulence models exist for the
computational domain and pressure outlet boundary condition is
prediction of fluctuating terms of this equation. In the content of
taken at outlet.
this study, numerical solutions have been performed by using
Realizable k-ε and Standard k-u turbulence models.
Realizable k-ε turbulence model suggested by Shih et al. [26] is 3.3. Numerical solution procedure
more responsive to the effects of rapid strain and streamlines
curvature, flow separation, reattachment and recirculation. For this The governing equations are solved using the ANSYS-FLUENT 14,
reason, it can capture the near-wall turbulence effects more accu- by finite volume discretization, using a segregated solver with an
rately. This model consists of two transport equations which solve implicit formulation. The discretized equations for the pressur-
the turbulent kinetic energy (k) and turbulent dissipation rate (ε). eevelocity coupling are solved by using the SIMPLEC algorithm on
The transport equations are as follows: staggered grids. SIMPLEC procedure uses modified equation for
face flux correction. The use of modified correction equation ac-
"  # celerates convergence. Pressure is solved using standard dis-
v
 v mt vk
rkuj ¼ mþ þ Gk þ Gb  rε  YM þ Sk (4) cretization scheme. A second order discretization method is used
vxi vxi sk vxj
for the other variables (momentum, turbulent kinetic energy and
turbulence dissipation rate). Second order discretization scheme
"  #
v
 v mt vε ε2 presents higher-order accuracy especially for complex flows
rεuj ¼ mþ þ rC1 Sε  rC2 pffiffiffiffiffi involving separation. Enhancement wall treatment is used as wall
vxj vxj sε vxj k þ nε
function to obtain reasonably accurate predictions near the wall.
ε The convergence criterion for the residuals is set to 1  106 for all
þ C1ε C3ε Gb þ Sε (5)
k dependent variables.
Grid types on solution domains are performed near the building
where Gk is the production of turbulent kinetic energy due to the
models with increasing intensity as seen in Fig. 5. Structured
mean velocity gradients, Gb represents the generation of the tur-
quadratic mesh is used in the flow fields to discretize the governing
bulent kinetic energy due to buoyancy while YM is referred to the
equations. To ensure the attainment of grid-independent results,
fluctuation rates related to the overall dissipated turbulent thermal
sensitivities of both grid numbers and grid distributions are tested
energy. sk and sε represent the turbulent Prandtl numbers based on
for each case. The mesh used is refined for each model until
k and ε, respectively; while Sk and Sε are further generation terms.
negligible differences are obtained. Finally, total number of 800000
The turbulent viscosity is defined by
grid is used to obtain grid independent results for the building
models.
k2
mt ¼ rCm (6) Turbulence models, boundary conditions and solution proce-
ε
dure used in present study is similar with the parameters in the
The model constants for the Realizable k-ε model are given by: studies of Franke et al. [28] and Tominaga et al. [29].
C1ε¼1.44, C2 ¼ 1.9, sk ¼ 1.0 and sε ¼ 1.2. Cm is no longer a constant in
this model. 4. Results and discussion
In the Standard k-u turbulence model suggested by Wilcox [27],
k is turbulent kinetic energy and u is the ratio of dissipation to Flow patterns around building models having different roof
kinetic energy (u¼ε/k). Turbulent viscosity at this model is given by pitches obtained with smoke-wire technique, Realizable k-ε tur-
bulence model and Standard k-u turbulence model are given
k
mt ¼ r (7)
u
Transport equations for turbulent kinetic energy k and specific
dissipation u are given by
" #
vðrkÞ vðrkui Þ v vk
þ ¼ Gk þ Gk  Yk þ Sk (8)
vt vxj vxj vxj

" #
vðruÞ vðruui Þ v vu
þ ¼ Gk þ Gu  Yu þ Su (9)
vt vxi vxj vxj

where Gk is turbulent kinetic energy generation caused by mean

velocity gradient, Gu is the production of u. Gk and Gu are effective Fig. 4. Solution domain and boundary conditions.
68 Y. Ozmen et al. / Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74

Fig. 5. 3D mesh types (a) a ¼ 15
(b) a ¼ 30
(c) a ¼ 45
.

together for wind angle of 90
in Fig. 6. Incoming flow to the 15

pitched roof is separated from the leading edge of the model and a
recirculation region occurs on the front part of the windward roof.
Flow separating from the leading edge of the roof reattaches onto
the windward roof after recirculation region. There is again a sep-
aration zone in immediately downstream of the roof ridge and it
sweeps to the rear of the model along the flow. Vortices periodically
formed on the roof due to reverse flows are spread along the back of
the building model. Mixing layer formed on the roof due to flow
separating from the leading edge of the building model is closer to
the roof surface on the windward side (Fig. 6a,d,g). With increasing
roof pitch, the separation zone disappears in upstream field up to
ridge of roof. In case of the roof pitches of 30
and 45
, the flow
separates from ridge of the roofs and don't attach onto the roofs.
Formed and separated vortices stemmed from reverse flow are
spread through the rear of the model along the flow. It is obvious
that vortices formed due to flow separating from roof ridge are
move along the flow for 30
pitched roof. These vortices act down
and upward directions at the form of periodic oscillations
(Fig. 6b,e,h). The flow following windward roof surface of the
building model separates from the roof ridge for the 45
pitched
roof. Mixing layer formed on the leeward side of the roof rises and a
larger reverse flow region occurs behind the model (Fig. 6c,f,i).
Small scale secondary recirculation regions occur in front of the all
studied building models. Flow images obtained by numerical so-
lutions are coherent with the photographs of flow visualization.
Standard k-u turbulence model gives more precise results in the
reverse flow regions occurred at the leading edge and rear of the
model. The length of primary reverse flow region is twice bigger
than the Realizable k-ε turbulence model at the rear side of the
model. Standard k-u turbulence model shows a better accordance
with the photos of flow visualization.

Fig. 6. Flow patterns around building models obtained with smoke-wire technique, Realizable k-ε turbulence model and Standard k-u turbulence model (a,d,g) roof pitch of 15
,
(b,e,h) roof pitch of 30
, (c,f,i) roof pitch of 45
.
 Y. Ozmen et al. / Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74
The models are replaced in central line of test section and mean
velocity and turbulence velocity measurements are taken at verti-
cal plane along the centralpline.
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi The longitudinal mean velocity (u)
and turbulence velocity ð u02 Þ profiles of the reference boundary
layer measured at a distance of 4H before the models, are shown in
Fig. 7. Turbulence intensity at level of model height in reference
boundary layer is about 12%. Figs. 8e10 experimentally and
numerically show the mean velocity and turbulence kinetic energy
profiles along the mid-axes of models at different distinct locations
around and over the building models with the gable roof pitches of
15
, 30
and 45
for wind angle of 90
. x ¼ x=H and y ¼ y=H are the
non-dimensional axial and vertical coordinates, respectively and
the origins are at upstream bottom edge of the models.
The mean velocity profiles around the model with 15
pitched
roof given in Fig. 8a indicate that there is a small recirculation re-
gion in front of the model, while a large recirculation region occurs
at the back of the model at height of the roof level. Considering the
turbulence kinetic energy profiles at the same locations, it is seen
that the largest values of turbulence kinetic energy occur at height
of the roof level (Fig. 8c). This proves the presence of the mixing
layer occurred between the free stream flow and reverse flow re-
gion. Fig. 8b,d shows the mean velocity and turbulence profiles over
the roof of model. Flow separated from the leading edge of the roof
forms a small recirculation region on the front part of the windward
roof and then reattaches on the windward roof. Turbulence kinetic
energy increases towards the rear edge of the roof. The mean ve-
locity and turbulence kinetic energy profiles given in Figs. 9 and 10
show that there is no flow separation at the windward side on both
roofs with pitches of 30
and 45
. Increasing roof pitch prevents the
Fig. 7. Profiles of mean velocity and turbulence intensity.
69
flow separation. Just after the roof ridge, it is seen that the sepa-
ration zones develop at the leeward side and subsequent to a
recirculation region occurs. In the case of 45
pitched roof, recir-
culation region is much stronger and spreads up to the roof ridge.
Turbulence kinetic energy profiles represent peak values near the
model surfaces due to the flow separation. These peak values reach
to nearly two times of reference boundary layer. These findings are
also supported with the flow visualization in Fig. 6. Mean velocity
profiles in front and behind parts of the building model with 30

roof pitch is similar to the situation at around 15
pitched roof
model (Fig. 9a). It is seen from mean velocity profiles over the 30

pitched roof that there is no flow separation on the windward side,
while flow is separated on the leeward side (Fig. 9b). Recirculation
region occurred on the leeward roof due to flow separation is
extended along the mixing layer at the behind of the model. Tur-
bulence kinetic energy reaches the largest value in the mixing layer
between the free stream flow and recirculation region (Fig. 9c).
Turbulent kinetic energy profiles on the rear part of the leeward
roof takes larger values due to recirculation region (Fig. 9d). Mean
velocity and turbulence kinetic energy profiles along the mid-axis
of building model with the 45
roof pitch at various stations are
given in Fig. 10. There is no flow separation on the windward roof
due to impinging effect. Flow separated from roof ridge forms a
large recirculation region covered behind of the model. Recircula-
tion regions occurred on the leeward roof and at the behind of the
model are greater than those of 15
and 30
pitched roofs
(Fig. 10a,b). Peak values of turbulent kinetic energy in mixing layer
are higher than those of 15
and 30
pitched roofs (Fig. 10c,d).
When the measurements were taken with the hot wire anemom-
eter at the regions where the flow is very close to wall, it is very
difficult to get an accurate and meaningful results owing to addi-
tional heat losses from the wire probe to the wall. Mean velocity
profiles calculated with both turbulence models are compatible
with measured profiles in the free stream flow regions, while they
illustrate difference in the recirculation regions. Except the recir-
culation regions, there is good agreement between numerical and
experimental results for mean velocity profiles.
It is seen from the numerical results that the turbulence kinetic
energy estimations are worse than the estimated mean velocities.
Although turbulence kinetic energy profiles obtained numerically
show similar trends with experimental profiles in the all flow fields,
they become different with extremely large values in the mixing
layer. The turbulence kinetic energy predictions are better down-
stream part of the flow field than upstream part. Turbulence
models used in this study are not sufficient in the recirculation
regions. This discrepancy between the measured and predicted
values are mainly from the numerical technique and also in-
adequacy of the turbulence model. Similar findings have been also
pointed out by previous studies [16]. Realizable k-ε turbulence
model gives better results than the Standard k-u model at the
prediction mean velocity and turbulence kinetic energy.
The variations of mean surface pressure coefficients along the
mid-axes of gable roofed building model at q ¼ 90
wind angle are
given comparatively with the results of Realizable k-ε and Standard
k-u turbulence models and with the measurements of Easom [30]
and Parmentier et al. [31] in Fig. 11aec for the 15
, 30
, and 45
roof
pitches, respectively. Pressure distributions on the windward walls
of building models are positive due to pushing effect. Negative
pressure fields occur both on the roofs and leeward walls of the
building models due to flow separating from the leading edges and
ridges of the roofs. For the 15
roof pitch, the flow separating from
the leading edge of the model reattaches on the windward surface
of the roof. The largest negative pressure occurs in separation flow
region near the leading edge of the roof and reduces in magnitude
progressively in the reattachment region on the roof surface.
70 Y. Ozmen et al. / Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74

Fig. 8. Mean velocity and turbulent kinetic energy profiles along the mid-axis of model at a ¼ 15
and q ¼ 90
[B and C experimental, ee Realizable k-ε, —— Standard k-u] (a)
Mean velocity around the model (b) Mean velocity over the model (c) Turbulent kinetic energy around the model (d) Turbulent kinetic energy over the model.

Pressure distribution along the leeward wall is almost uniform and
below the atmospheric pressure (Fig. 11a). Negative pressure dis-
tributions on the leeward roof and rear wall have the same mag-
nitudes and they are stronger than the negative pressures on the
windward roof except leading edge region in case of 30
roof pitch
(Fig. 11b). For the 45
roof pitch, surface pressures measured dis-
tributions are positive on the windward wall and on the large part
of the windward roof which is directly exposed to the wind. Due to
the flow separation from the roof ridge, negative pressure
distributions occur on the leeward roof and wall with the same
magnitudes (Fig. 11c). It is clear from Fig. 11aec that there are good
accordance between the measured mean pressure distributions of
present study and Easom [30] and Parmentier et al. [31] measure-
ments for all three roof pitches. Mean pressure distributions ob-
tained with two turbulence models show similar trends with
measured pressure distributions on the surface of building models.
The comparison of both turbulence models illustrates that Standard
k-u model gives slightly better results than Realizable k-ε
 Y. Ozmen et al. / Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74 71

Fig. 9. Mean velocity and turbulent kinetic energy profiles along the mid-axis of model at a ¼ 30
and q ¼ 90
[B and C experimental, ee Realizable k-ε, —— Standard k-u] (a)
Mean velocity around the model (b) Mean velocity over the model (c) Turbulent kinetic energy around the model (d) Turbulent kinetic energy over the model.

turbulence model for the mean pressures coefficients. Numerical
results provide an important contribution to the study by showing
precision of used turbulence models against experimental data.
Fig. 12 illustrates the effect of roof pitch on the mean pressure
coefficients measured along the mid-axes of building models for
wind angle of 90
respectively. Positive pressure distributions occur
on the windward walls of the models which are directly exposed to
wind due to the pushing effect for all tested roof pitches. For the 15

and 30
of roof pitches, pressure coefficients are negative on all the
roofs. Surface pressure coefficients take minimum values near the
leading edge of the roof and then increase to the maximum values
and again decrease on the windward edge. This behavior is due to
the recirculation region incurred flow separating from the leading
edge. The recirculation regions decrease with increasing roof pitch.
Pressure coefficients monotonically decrease on the windward roof
for the roof pitch of 45
. No recirculation region and negative
pressure on the windward roof for 45
roof pitch occur. Flow
separating from the roof ridge forms similar negative pressure
coefficients on the leeward roofs and the rear walls for all tested
roof pitches. It is seen that 15
roof pitch produces more critical
suction effect than the 30
and 45
roof pitches. Eaton et al. [32]
declared that suction loads increase with decreasing roof pitch
and critical suctions are effective for a short distance from wind-
ward edge. Similar findings are also obtained from the mean ve-
locity and turbulence measurements in Figs. 8e10. It is seen that
there is a linkage between the recirculation regions and critical
72 Y. Ozmen et al. / Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74

Fig. 10. Mean velocity and turbulent kinetic energy profiles along the mid-axis of model at a ¼ 45
and q ¼ 90
[B and C experimental, ee Realizable k-ε, —— Standard k-u] (a)
Mean velocity around the model (b) Mean velocity over the model (c) Turbulent kinetic energy around the model (d) Turbulent kinetic energy over the model.

suctions on the roofs.
5. Conclusion
Experimental and numerical investigations were carried out on
the turbulent flow fields around the low-rise building models with
gabled roofs having different pitch angles immersed in atmo-
spheric boundary layer. Information on the flow structure was
obtained by flow visualization, measurements of mean and tur-
bulence velocity profiles, measurements of surface pressure dis-
tributions and numerical predictions. Flow visualization showed
that recirculation regions exist upstream and downstream of the
building models. Incoming flow to the 15
pitched roof is separated
from the leading edge of the model and a recirculation region oc-
curs on the front part of the windward roof. The separation zone
disappears in upstream field up to ridge of roof with increasing roof
pitch. In case of the roof pitches of 30
and 45
, the flows separated
from roof ridges don't attach onto the roofs. Just after the roof
ridges, separation zones are seen to develop recirculation regions
on the leeward sides of the roofs. Recirculation regions occurred on
the leeward roofs due to flow separation are extended along the
mixing layer at the behind of the models. Large recirculation re-
gions occur at the back of the models at the level of the model
height. The mean velocity and turbulence kinetic energy profiles
are influenced by the roof pitch. The maximum values in the tur-
bulence profiles occur in the mixing layer between the free Recir-
culation regions is much stronger and spreads up to the roof ridge
with increasing roof stream flow and recirculation regions due to
large velocity gradients. The axial turbulence profiles are nearly
uniform in the both upstream and downstream recirculation re-
gions. Turbulence kinetic energy profiles represent peak values
near the model surfaces due to the flow separation. These peak
 Y. Ozmen et al. / Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74
Fig. 11. Variation of mean pressure coefficients along the mid-axis of building models
for q ¼ 90
(a) a ¼ 15
(b) a ¼ 30
(c) a ¼ 45
.
values reach to nearly two times of reference boundary layer. It is
concluded from the surface pressure distributions that the 15
roof
pitch produces more critical suction effect on the roofs than those
of the 30
and 45
roof pitches. There is a linkage between the
recirculation regions and critical suctions on the roofs. The present
predictions for turbulent flow over the two dimensional building
models are in better agreement with measurements except for
recirculation regions. In the recirculation regions and mixing layer,
the predictions represent the deviations from the measurements.
The numerical results shows that Realizable k-ε turbulence model
exhibit better agreement at the prediction mean velocity and tur-
bulence kinetic energy while Standard k-u turbulence models
73
Fig. 12. The effect of roof pitch on the mean pressure coefficient along the mid-axis of
building models for q ¼ 90
.
exhibit better agreement at the prediction of mean pressures
coefficients.
References
[1] S.K. Kumar, Simulation of Fluctuating Wind Pressure on Low Building Roofs,
Concordia University, 1997. PhD Thesis.
[2] I.P. Castro, A.G. Robins, The flow around a surface mounted cube in uniform
and turbulent stream, J. Fluid Mech. 79 (1977) 307e335.
[3] I.P. Castro, Measurements in shear layers separating from surface mounted
bluff bodies, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7 (1981) 253e272.
[4] J.D. Holmes, Wind loads on low rise buildings e A Review, Commonw. Sci. Ind.
Res. Organ. (CSIRO) Div. Build. Res. (1983).
[5] J.E. Fackrell, Parameters characteristing dispersion in the near wake of
buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 16 (1984) 97e118.
[6] V. Atli, Subsonic flow over a two dimensional obstacle immersed in a turbu-
lent boundary layer on a flat surface, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 31 (1988)
225e239.
[7] J.H. Agui, J. Andreopoulos, Experimental investigation of a 3-D boundary layer
flow in the vicinity of an upright wall mounted cylinder, J. Fluids Eng. Trans.
ASME 114 (1992) 566e576.
[8] J.D. Ginger, C.W. Letchford, Pressure factors for edge regions on low-rise
buildings roofs, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54e55 (1995) 337e344.
[9] E. Baydar, H.S. Onur, The turbulent flow around surface mounted obstacles
immersed in boundary layer, Tr. J. Eng. Environ. Sci. 20 (1996) 33e41.
[10] S. Becker, H. Lienhart, F. Durst, Flow around three-dimensional obstacles in
boundary layers, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 265e279.
[11] H.W. Tieleman, Wind tunnel simulation of wind loading on low-rise struc-
tures: a review, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1627e1649.
[12] J.M.M. Sousa, J.C.F. Pereira, DPIV study of the effect of a gable roof on the flow
structure around a surface-mounted cubic obstacle, Exp. Fluids 37 (2004)
409e418.
[13] H. Hu, Z. Yang, P. Sarkar, F. Haan, Characterization of the wind loads and flow
fields around a gable-roof building model in tornado-like winds, Exp. Fluids
51 (2011) 835e851.
[14] M. Mahmood, Experiments to study turbulence and flow past a low-rise
building at oblique incidence, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 99 (2011) 560e572.
[15] Y.C. Kim, Y. Tamura, Effects of incident flows on wind loads and their com-
binations on a low-rise building immersed in a long upstream fetch, J. Struct.
Eng. 140 (2014) 1e8.
[16] Y. Tominaga, S. Akabayashi, T. Kitahara, Y. Arinami, Air flow around isolated
gable-roof buildings with different roof pitches: wind tunnel experiments and
CFD simulations, Build. Environ. 84 (2015) 204e213.
[17] A.C. Flowe, A. Kumar, Analysis of velocity fields and dispersive cavity pa-
rameters as a function of building width to building height ratio using a 3-D
computer model for square buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 86 (2000)
87e122.
[18] P.J. Oliveira, B.A. Younis, On the prediction of turbulent flows around full-scale
buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 86 (2000) 203e220.
[19] M. Tutar, G. Oguz, Large eddy simulation of wind flow around parallel
buildings with varying configurations, Fluid Dyn. Res. 31 (2002) 289e315.
[20] F.S. Lien, E. Yee, Y. Cheng, Simulation of mean flow and turbulence over a 2D
building array using high-resolution CFD and a distributed drag force
approach, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 92 (2004) 117e158.
[21] Y. Gao, W.K. Chow, Numerical studies on air flow around a cube, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 115e135.
[22] M.S. Virk, A.E. Holdo, Numerical study of wind loads on a low-rise pitched roof
74 Y. Ozmen et al. / Building and Environment 95 (2016) 63e74
building with spirelet, Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 22 (10) (2008) 687e694.
[23] J.A. Counihan, Improved method of simulating an atmospheric boundary layer
in a wind tunnel, Atmos. Environ. 3 (1969) 197e214.
[24] J.P. Holman, Experimental Methods for Engineers, McGraw-Hill Book Com-
pany, NewYork, 1994.
[25] S.J. Kline, F.A. McClintock, Describing uncertainties in single-sample experi-
ments, Mech. Eng. (1953).
[26] T.H. Shih, W.W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang, J. Zhu, A new k-epsilon eddy-
viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows e model devel-
opment and validation, Comput. Fluids 24 (3) (1995) 227e238.
[27] D.C. Wilcox, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries La Canada, Cali-
fornia, 1998.
[28] J. Franke, A. Hellsten, H. Schlünzen, B. Carissimo (Eds.), Best Practice Guideline
for the CFD Simulation of Flows in the Urban Environment, COST Office,
View publication stats
Brussels, 2007, ISBN 3-00-018312-4.
[29] Y. Tominaga, A. Mochida, R. Yoshie, H. Kataoka, T. Nozu, M. Yoshikawa,
T. Shirasawa, AIJ guidelines for practical applications of CFD to pedestrian
wind environment around buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 96 (10e11)
(2008) 1749e1761.
[30] G. Easom, Improved Turbulence Models for Computational Wind Engineering,
PhD Thesis School of Civil Engineering The University of Nottingham, 2000.
[31] Parmentier B, Hoxey R, Buchlin JM, Corieri P. The assessment of full-scale
experimental methods for measuring wind effects on low rise buildings.
COST Action C14, Impact of Wind and Storm on City Life and Built Environ-
ment June 3e4 Nantes France 2002.
[32] Eaton KJ, Mayne JR, Cook NJ. Wind loads on low-rise buildings effects of roof
geometry. 4th International Conference on Wind Effects on Buildings and
Structures 8e12 September London 1975.