The presence of buildings that surround the wind environment adversely affects at the pedestrian level. The present study investigates the effect of different arrangement of two buildings on wind flow structure and modification of wind speed conditions at the pedestrian level. The investigation was carried out for parallel, tandem, and staggered arrangement of two buildings using computational fluid dynamics simulations. The wind tunnel experiments were conducted to validate the computational fluid dynamics results. The computational fluid dynamics simulations were performed using the standard model with LK modification and revised closure coefficients. Different flow features such as skew-symmetric vortex structure for parallel arrangement, reattachment of shear layer on the surfaces of the downstream building for tandem arrangement, and deviation of wake region behind the upstream building to leftward of the flow direction for staggered arrangement were observed. It was observed that the strong wind conditions were mostly affected by tandem and parallel location of the twin buildings. The results of numerical simulation obtained using the modified SKE model were found to be in good agreement with the experimental results.
BaileyPAKwokKCS (1985) Interference excitation of twin tall buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics21(3): 323–338.
2.
BlockenBCarmelietJStathopoulosT (2007a) CFD evaluation of wind speed conditions in passages between parallel buildings-effect of wall-function roughness modifications for the atmospheric boundary layer flow. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics95(9–11): 941–962.
3.
BlockenBRoelsSCarmelietJ (2004) Modification of pedestrian wind comfort in the silver top tower passages by an automatic control system. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics92(10): 849–873.
4.
BlockenBStathopoulosTCarmelietJ (2007b) CFD simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer: wall function problems. Atmospheric Environment41: 238–252.
5.
BlockenBStathopoulosTCarmelietJ (2008) Wind environmental conditions in passages between two long narrow perpendicular buildings. Journal of Aerospace Engineering21: 280–287.
6.
COST (2007) Best practice guidelines for the CFD simulation of flows in the urban environment. COST Action 732, 1May. Brussels: COST Office.
7.
DuYMakCMLiuJ, et al. (2017a) Effects of lift-up design on pedestrian level wind comfort in different building configurations under three wind directions. Building and Environment117:84–99.
8.
DuYMakCMKwokKCS, et al. (2017b) New criteria for assessing low wind environment at pedestrian level in Hong Kong. Building and Environment123: 23–36.
9.
IrwinHPAH (1981) A simple omnidirectional sensor for wind-tunnel studies of pedestrian-level winds. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics7: 219–239.
10.
KatoMLaunderB (1993) The modeling of turbulent flow around stationary and vibrating square cylinders. In: Proceedings of the ninth symposium on turbulent shear flows, Kyoto, Japan, 16–18 August.
11.
KhanduriACStathopoulosTBédardC (1998) Wind induced interference effects on buildings—a review of the state-of-the-art. Engineering Structures20(7): 617–630.
12.
LamKMZhaoJGLeungMYH (2011) Wind induced loading and dynamic responses of a row of tall buildings under strong interference. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics99(5): 573–583.
13.
MartinuzziRJHavelB (2000) Turbulent flow around two interfering surface mounted cubic obstacles in tandem arrangement. Journal of Fluids Engineering122(1): 24–31.
14.
MittalHSharmaAGairolaA (2018) A review on the study of urban wind at the pedestrian level around buildings. Journal of Building Engineering18: 154–163.
15.
MittalHSharmaAGairolaA (2019) Numerical simulation of pedestrian level wind flow around buildings: effect of corner modification and orientation. Journal of Building Engineering22: 314–326.
16.
NgE (2009) Policies and technical guidelines for urban planning of high–density cities—air ventilation assessment (AVA) of Hong Kong. Building and Environment44: 1478–1488.
17.
SakamotoHHaniuH (1988) Aerodynamic forces acting on two square prisms placed vertically in a turbulent boundary layer. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics31: 41–66.
18.
SharmaAMittalHGairolaA (2018) Mitigation of wind load on tall buildings through aerodynamic modifications: review. Journal of Building Engineering18: 180–194.
19.
SharmaAMittalHGairolaA (2019) Detached-eddy simulation of interference between buildings in tandem arrangement. Journal of Building Engineering21: 129–140.
20.
ShirzadiMMirzaeiPANaghashzadeganM (2017) Improvement of K-ε turbulence model for CFD simulation of atmospheric boundary layer around a high-rise building using stochastic optimization and Monte Carlo sampling technique. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics171: 366–379.
21.
SohankarA (2012) A numerical investigation of the flow over a pair of identical square cylinder in a tandem arrangement. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids70: 1244–1257.
22.
SohankarA (2014) A LES study of the flow interference between tandem square cylinder pairs. Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics28(5): 531–548.
23.
StathopoulosT (1985) Wind environmental conditions around tall buildings with chamfered corners. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics21: 71–87.
24.
StathopoulosTStormsR (1986) Wind environmental conditions in passages between buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics24: 19–31.
25.
TaniikeY (1992) Interference mechanism for enhanced wind forces on neighboring tall buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics42(1–3): 1073–1083.
26.
TominagaY (2015) Flow around a high-rise building using steady and unsteady RANS CFD: effect of large-scale fluctuations on the velocity statistics. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics142: 93–103.
27.
TsangCWKwokKCSHitchcockPA (2012) Wind tunnel study of pedestrian level wind environment around tall buildings: effects of building dimensions, separation and podium. Building and Environment49: 167–181.
28.
TseKTZhangXWeerasuriyaAU, et al. (2017a) Adopting “lift-up” building design to improve the surrounding pedestrian-level wind environment. Building and Environment117: 154–165.
29.
TseKTWeerasuriyaAUZhangX, et al. (2017b) Pedestrian-level wind environment around isolated buildings under the influence of twisted wind flows. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics162: 12–23.
30.
UematsuYYamadaMHigashiyamaH, et al. (1992) Effects of the corner shape of high-rise buildings on the pedestrian-level wind environment with consideration for mean and fluctuating wind speeds. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics44: 2289–2300.
31.
WillemsenEWisseJA (2007) Design for wind comfort in the Netherlands: procedures, criteria and open research issues. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics95: 1541–1550.
32.
WuHKriksicF (2012) Designing for pedestrian comfort in response to local climate. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics104–106: 397.
33.
XuXYangQYoshidaA, et al. (2017) Characteristics of pedestrian-level wind around super-tall buildings with various configurations. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics166: 61–73.
34.
Zahid IqbalQMChanALS (2016) Pedestrian level wind environment assessment around group of high-rise cross-shaped buildings: effect of building shape, separation and orientation. Building and Environment101: 45–63.
35.
ZhangXTseKTWeerasuriyaAU, et al. (2017) Evaluation of pedestrian wind comfort near “lift-up” buildings with different aspect ratios and central core modifications. Building and Environment124: 245–257.
36.
ZuGLamKM (2018) LES and wind tunnel test of flow around two tall buildings in staggered arrangement. Computation6(2): 28.
