• Energy Research

The variation of pressure at the faces of the octagonal plan shaped tall building due to interference of three square plan shaped tall building of same height is analysed by computational fluid dynamics module, namely ANSYS CFX for 0° wind incidence angle only. All the buildings are closely spaced (distance between two buildings varies from 0.4h to 2h, where h is the height of the building). Different cases depending upon the various positions of the square plan shaped buildings are analysed and compared with the octagonal plan shaped building in isolated condition. The comparison is presented in the form of interference factors (IF) and IF contours. Abnormal pressure distribution is observed in some cases. Shielding and channelling effect on the octagonal plan shaped building due to the presence of the interfering buildings are also noted. In the interfering condition the pressure distribution at the faces of the octagonal plan shaped building is not predictable. As the distance between the principal octagonal plan shaped building and the third square plan shaped interfering building increases the behaviour of faces becomes more systematic. The coefficient of pressure (C p) for each face of the octagonal plan shaped building in each interfering case can be easily found if we multiply the IF with the C p in the isolated case.

The study is on the variation of pressure in different faces of rectangular plan-shaped tall buildings with interference conditions due to the presence of another building with the same shape and dimension connected through a multipurpose bridge. The analysis is done on computational fluid dynamics (namely ANSYS CFX) for 0° to 90° wind incidence angle (WIA). The buildings are spaced 60 m from each other. Different cases have been taken and analyzed based on the different positions of the bridge (i.e., 0.33H, 0.5H, and 0.67H) and compared with the isolated case (i.e., buildings without the bridge). A comparison study has been done in the form of interference factor (IF), so we can clearly understand the effect of the bridge at different heights of the building and isolated conditions on rectangular plan-shaped buildings. The study shows that when the bridge is at 0.5H and 0.33H, the force coefficient along X and Y produces similar results to an isolated condition for WIA of 60° and 30°, respectively.

SummaryThis study investigates the impact of different positions of two limbs on the structural response of a rectangular building model to wind forces. The building's geometry assumes Z and + shapes based on specific limb configurations. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are performed to quantify wind‐induced pressures, resulting in wind force coefficients. These coefficients are used to develop predictive machine learning models through Gene Expression Programming, Group Method of Data Handling‐combinatorial (GMDH‐Combi), Model Tree, and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) techniques. The ANN analysis explores various combinations of training algorithms, adaptation functions, activation functions, and performance functions to enhance model accuracy. Among these, the Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) with gradient descent with momentum (GDM) adaptation function and sigmoid activation function exhibit superior performance with high R‐squared values. These predictive models are then employed for a comprehensive comparative assessment of the maximum wind force coefficient (CF, max) concerning different limb positions and angles of attack (AOA). For CF, max vs Limb position, variations of limb position are examined for most critical cases of AOA. Similarly, the study of CF, max vs AOA involves an exhaustive investigation into the variation of AOA for the building with the worst limb position. The analysis reveals that changes in AOA have a more pronounced effect on CF, max compared to alterations in limb position. Interestingly, within the AOA range of 1.5 to 2.5, the CF, max consistently reaches a minimum across all models. However, the relationship between CF, max and the critical structural parameter ‘S' (representing limb position) remains less conclusive for the most significant AOAs.