Exploring the impact of vertically separated flows on wind loads of multi-level structures
Exploring the impact of vertically separated flows on wind loads of multi-level structures
复制标题
垂直分离流对多层结构风荷载影响的探讨
DOI：
10.3389/fphy.2023.1225817
复制
发表时间：
2023-08
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Chia Mohammadjani;I. Zisis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chia Mohammadjani;I. Zisis
在评估多级结构的风载时，垂直分离流的复杂动力学构成了重大挑战，要求对大气条件和建筑设计之间的复杂相互作用有细微的理解。先前的研究和风负荷标准为设计多层建筑物设计风压提供了足够的指导。垂直附着表面周围的风的行为与单个平坦屋顶或墙壁的行为并不十分相似。当身体由右角或倾斜角的几个表面组成时，从表面的分离流及其相互作用将导致每个表面周围的复杂流动模式。在带有附着的平板和其他高度的其他相邻的悬浮板上进行了风洞实验研究，以检查这种复杂形状上的风引起的压力。测量平均压力系数和峰值压力系数，以确定局部峰值压力的流动相互作用模式和位置。将结果与没有屋檐的孤立低层建筑的东京理工大学空气动力学数据库进行了比较。研究结果表明，与东京理工大学获得的结果相比，本研究中使用的模型的墙壁和屋顶表面上的峰值和屋顶表面的峰值压力的最小值和最大值和位置之间存在明显的差异。此外，可以想象的研究表明，与ASCE 7-22风载区的峰值负压和正压系数位置之间的差异。峰值吸气区受到垂直面的合并流动的影响，因此，与ASCE 7-22引入的风负荷区不同。可能需要修改风载标准，以说明复杂建筑结构的风压，重点是峰值负压区域的位置。
The complex dynamics of vertically separated flows pose a significant challenge when it comes to assessing the wind loads on multi-level structures, demanding a nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay between atmospheric conditions and architectural designs. Previous studies and wind loading standards provide insufficient guidance for designing wind pressures on multi-level buildings. The behavior of wind around perpendicularly attached surfaces is not quite similar to that of individual flat roofs or walls. When a body is composed of several surfaces with right or oblique angles, the separated flow from surfaces and their interactions will cause complex flow patterns around each surface. A wind tunnel experimental study was carried out on bluff bodies with attached flat plates and other adjacent bluff bodies with different heights to examine the wind-induced pressures on such complex shapes. Mean and peak pressure coefficients were measured to determine the flow interaction patterns and location of localized peak pressures. The results were compared to the Tokyo Polytechnic University Aerodynamic Database of isolated low-rise buildings without eaves. The research findings indicated that there was a noteworthy disparity between the minimum and maximum values and locations of peak pressures on both the wall and roof surfaces of the models used in this study, as compared to the results obtained by the Tokyo Polytechnic University. Moreover, the study conceivably pointed to the difference between the peak negative and positive pressure coefficient locations with the ASCE 7-22 wind loading zones. The peak suction zones were affected by the combined flows at perpendicular faces, and as a result, different wind load zones were obtained dissimilar to those introduced by ASCE 7-22. Wind loading standards may need to be modified to account for the wind pressures on complex building structures with an emphasis on the location of the peak negative pressure zones.