IJESRT: 9(7), July, 2020 ISSN: 2277-9655

International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research

Technology
(A Peer Reviewed Online Journal)
Impact Factor: 5.164

IJESRT

Chief Editor Executive Editor

Dr. J.B. Helonde Mr. Somil Mayur Shah

Website: www.ijesrt.com Mail: editor@ijesrt.com

 ISSN: 2277-9655
[Deshmukh et al., 9(7): July, 2020] Impact Factor: 5.164
IC™ Value: 3.00 CODEN: IJESS7

IJESRT
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES & RESEARCH
TECHNOLOGY
WIND ANALYSIS OF TALL BUILDING
Er. Pranil Deshmukh*1 & Dr. M.R. Shiyekar2
*1
M.tech student Structural Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Karad
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics, Government College of Engineering, Karad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29121/ijesrt.v9.i7.2020.14
ABSTRACT
Tall building is an emerging construction practice in Indian metropolitan cities due to large urbanization. The
design criteria for tall buildings are different than low and mid-rise buildings. In tall buildings usually, the wind
is the critical load that needs to be considered for the safety and serviceability of the structure. Any tall building
can vibrate and oscillate in both the directions due to along-wind and across-wind. These oscillations may even
cause discomfort to the occupants even if it is not in a threatening position for the structural damage. So, an
accurate assessment of building motion is an essential prerequisite for serviceability. National building code and
other Indian standard codes are not sufficient to adequately address various issues related to tall buildings.
Recently, IS 16700: 2017 “Criteria for Structural Safety of Tall Concrete Buildings” is released by BIS for tall
concrete buildings.
This Work deals with the detailed wind analysis of 180m tall building as per IS 16700: 2017. In which wind tunnel
studies will be carried out on a scaled-down model of a proposed tall building. This wind tunnel studies have also
been compared with the responses computed analytically and also check and satisfy all the criteria as per this
code.

KEYWORDS: Along-wind, Across-wind, tall buildings, wind tunnel studies, IS 16700: 2017.
1. INTRODUCTION
At every step that tall building design takes toward the sky, today’s structural engineers and architects coming
across new complications. As the height of tall buildings rises with developments in the field of structural system
design and the use of high-strength materials, their strength to weight ratio, slenderness and flexibility increase,
and their rigidity decrease and thus their susceptibility to wind loads increase. Wind loads, which cause large
lateral deflection, play a key role in the design of tall buildings and can be even more critical than earthquake
loads. As a result, the wind loads to which tall buildings are subject have become an important problem.

Since the weight of the structural system in the early tall buildings made vertical forces more critical than lateral
forces, wind loads were not considered important. In time, with developments and innovations in structural
systems and the increase in the strength to weight ratio of the structural elements, the weight of buildings decreased
and wind loads began to be important. Consequently, because the tall buildings being constructed today are lighter,
slenderer and more flexible than their predecessors, they are more prone to lateral drift with low damping, and
wind-induced building sway has been transformed into one of the most important problems encountered by tall
building designers, becoming a basic input to the design.

1.1 Dynamic effect of wind

As wind is a highly random varying dynamic phenomenon, it has significant dynamic effects on buildings and
structures, especially on tall building structures. Codes and standards suggest the gust factor Method approach for
estimating dynamic effect on high-rise structures. The concept of Gust factor method was first introduced by
davenport in 1967. The last few years have been witnessed considerable progress in the understanding of the
characteristics of wind, as well as the response to the various kinds of structures. “B. Dean Kumar and B.L.P.
Swami et al.(2010) carried out a dynamic analysis of slender tall structures the found that the gust factor computed
by the gust effectiveness factor method increase with the height of the building and they are more critical than
static pressure.”

htytp: // www.ijesrt.com© International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology

[147]

IJESRT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 ISSN: 2277-9655
[Deshmukh et al., 9(7): July, 2020] Impact Factor: 5.164
IC™ Value: 3.00 CODEN: IJESS7
“Halder and Dutta et al. (2010) had compared the structural parameters based on IS 875 (part3) and ASCE 7-02.
It was observed that base shear estimated for low to high rise buildings by Indian wind code is 1.30- 1.90 times
the same estimated by ASCE 7-02”. “I.Srikanth and b.Vamsi et al.(2014) focuses on Equivalent frames from 20
to 80 stories for D.L and L.L combination”. “Zheng-wei Zhang and Michael et al.(2017) worked focus is on the
calculation of cross-wind response of rectangular buildings, which is not covered by Eurocode 1 (part 1 to 4).”

1.2 Wind tunnel studies

Shorter and less flexible buildings are generally treated by building codes as static structures, and wind load can
be calculated as a static load on the building. For taller and/or more flexible structures the static load approach is
insufficient, and the wind load on the building is treated as a dynamic load. Boundary-layer wind tunnel tests can
be used to accurately determine the dynamic response of tall buildings to wind loading and
excitation.“Dragoiescu.C , Garber.J and K.Suresh et al.(2006) carried out a detailed investigation aimed at
quantifying the advantages and limitations of the HFFB and HFPI methods. They concluded that the HFFB
method offers the advantage that the total loading on complex geometries will be reflected in the measured base
loads”. “P.Mendis, T.Ngo, N. Haritos et al.(2007) gives an summary of advanced levels of wind design, in the
context of the Australian Wind Code, and also illustrates the exceptional benefits it offers over simplified
approaches. Wind tunnel tests, which has the potential advantage of further refinement in deriving design wind
loading and its effects on tall buildings, is also emphasized.”

1.3 Tall building codes

Recently, BIS released the Code IS 16700: 2017 “Criteria for Structural Safety of Tall Concrete Buildings” which
covers the following design aspects of reinforced concrete building of height greater than 50 m but less than or
equal to 250 m. It also suggests the criteria to adopt wind tunnel analysis. “Gangisetty, Venkata, Krishna, Ratnesh
Kumar et al.(2018) gives a brief detail about various clauses of the code. Overall, this code will assist designers
for considering various design limits for tall buildings and will channelize the design procedure”.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tall buildings which are ‘wind sensitive’ shall be designed for dynamic wind loads. Hourly mean wind speed is
used as a reference wind speed to be used in dynamic wind analysis. For calculation of along wind loads and
response (bending moments, shear forces, or tip deflections) the Gust Factor (GF) method is used as specified in
Cl 10.2 of IS 875 part 3. The across wind design peak base overturning moment & tip deflection shall be calculated
using Cl 10.3 of IS 875 part 3. After analytical calculation the wind tunnel tests was conducted using the High
Frequency Force Balance (HFFB) technique. A 1:400 scale model of the proposed development was constructed
using the architectural. The model was tested in the presence of all surroundings within a minimum full-scale
radius of 480 m, in RWDI’s 2.4 m X 1.8 m boundary layer wind tunnel facility in Trivandrum, Kerala, India.

2.1 Description of Building

The building studied is named as colo rise tower going to be built at dadar, India by Epicons Company. The
prototype is considered to be situated in an open terrain with well obstructions, defined in terrain category 4 in IS
875: part3. Base dimension of building: 33.95 m X 27.95 m and total height of building (Above ground) is 180.1m

htytp: // www.ijesrt.com© International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology

[148]

IJESRT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 ISSN: 2277-9655
[Deshmukh et al., 9(7): July, 2020] Impact Factor: 5.164
IC™ Value: 3.00 CODEN: IJESS7

Figure 1. Plan of The Building

Figure 2. Elevation of The Building

2.2 Along Wind and Across Wind Loads Calculated by Gust Factor Method
The design peak along wind base bending moment, (Ma) shall be obtained by summing the moments resulting
from design peak along wind loads acting at different heights, z, along the height of the building/structure and can
be obtained from,

Equation,

Fz = Cf,z Az Pd G (1)

where, G = Gust Factor and is given by

htytp: // www.ijesrt.com© International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology
[149]

IJESRT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 ISSN: 2277-9655
[Deshmukh et al., 9(7): July, 2020] Impact Factor: 5.164
IC™ Value: 3.00 CODEN: IJESS7

G 1 1
Fz = design peak along wind load on the building/ structure at any height z
Az = the effective frontal area of the building/ structure at any height z, in m2
Pd = design hourly mean wind pressure corresponding to Vz,d and obtained as 0.6 , (N/m2)
Vz,d = design hourly mean wind speed at height z, in m/s

The across wind design peak base bending moment Mc for enclosed buildings and towers shall be determined as
follows:

)*+
! 0.5 # $# %ℎ 1.06 ' 0.06 ( (3)

The across wind load distribution on the building/ structure can be obtained from Mc using linear distribution of
loads as given below:

./
, ,! - # 0 1 -# 1 (4)

Figure 3. Along wind forces vs height graph Figure 4. Across wind forces vs height graph

The along wind forces and across wind forces are calculated with excel spread sheets and the graphical
representation of wind forces with respect to height are plotted. The fluctuation in the along wind force graph is
due to the variation in floor to floor height and since the formula contain the effective frontal area of building the
variation in forces are noticeable where as the across wind forces is quite linear because the formula to calculate
across wind force does not vary much by the effect of height.

2.2 Wind tunnel analysis

The study was conducted using the High Frequency Force Balance (HFFB) technique. A 1:400 scale model of the
proposed development was build using the architectural drawings. The model was tested in the presence of all
surroundings within a minimum full-scale radius of 480 m, in RWDI’s 2.4 m X 1.8 m boundary layer wind tunnel
facility in Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Photographs of the wind tunnel study model are shown in Figure 5. An
orientation plan showing the study site and immediate surroundings is given in Figure 6. Wind direction is defined
as the direction from which the wind blows, measured clockwise from true north.

htytp: // www.ijesrt.com© International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology

[150]

IJESRT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 ISSN: 2277-9655
[Deshmukh et al., 9(7): July, 2020] Impact Factor: 5.164
IC™ Value: 3.00 CODEN: IJESS7

Figure 5. Wind Tunnel Study Model Figure 6. An orientation plan showing the study site

Table 1. Effective Wind Loads for 50-Year Return Period

Floor Ht. M z Floor
Fx (N ) Fy (N ) Ht. (m) Fx (N ) Fy (N ) M z (Nm)
Level (m) (Nm) Level
G.F 0 41500 18700 104000 21 94.95 201400 162700 451000
1 4.2 78000 37800 193000 22 98.25 208200 169900 466000
2 8.1 74000 33000 177000 23 101.55 214900 177000 480000
3 11.4 74100 29900 182000 24 104.85 220000 182800 490000
4 14.7 79300 31100 203000 25 108.15 228500 191500 507000
5 18 85100 36200 225000 26 111.45 235300 198700 521000
6 21.3 90800 41400 246000 27 114.75 241900 205800 533000
7 24.6 97200 47000 268000 28 118.05 248500 213000 545000
8 27.9 103600 52800 291000 29 121.35 255200 220200 557000
9.1 31.2 147700 85500 528000 30 124.65 261800 227500 569000
9.2 34.5 64500 29600 116000 31 127.95 267400 233800 578000
9.3 37.8 91100 50000 215000 32 131.25 293300 257400 644000
9.4 41.1 81600 44700 179000 33 134.55 228100 201500 393000
9.5 44.4 67300 35700 121000 34 137.85 233200 205400 396000
9.6 47.7 68600 37700 123000 F.C.F 141.15 241300 217500 415000
9.7 51 69700 39800 124000 35 143.85 237400 210900 396000
S.F 54.3 176300 124600 694000 36 147.15 249900 223900 411000
10 55.95 123500 89900 270000 37 150.45 257600 231500 427000
11 59.25 129100 88700 278000 38 153.75 260100 234900 428000
12 62.55 137800 96400 302000 39 157.05 267500 242700 437000
13 65.85 143800 102600 317000 40 160.35 272300 248300 442000
F.C.F 69.15 150600 111600 335000 41 163.65 277100 253800 447000
14 71.85 148300 110700 330000 42 166.95 281700 259300 451000
15 75.15 161400 121000 360000 43 170.25 286300 264700 456000
16 78.45 167900 127800 375000 44 173.55 290800 270100 460000
17 81.75 173300 133700 388000 45 176.85 295200 275500 464000
18 85.05 181200 141600 406000 T.F 180.15 535000 524700 957000
19 88.35 188000 148600 421000 Total 1.05E+07 8.51E+06 2.15E+07
20 91.65 194800 155700 436000

htytp: // www.ijesrt.com© International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology

[151]

IJESRT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 ISSN: 2277-9655
[Deshmukh et al., 9(7): July, 2020] Impact Factor: 5.164
IC™ Value: 3.00 CODEN: IJESS7

The floor wise wind forces acting on a building are obtained from both dynamic analysis and wind tunnel analysis
which will be input as wind loads in Etabs model for further analysis.

2.3 Modelling of the Building

Figure 7. Model of the Building in ETABS 2017

Structure has been analysed using ETABS 17 version. ETABS is developed by CSI and is completely tested by
various institutes and is highly recommended for building structures. After modelling, two separate models are
created in which loads obtain from dynamic analysis and loads obtain from wind tunnel analysis are applied to
their respective model. Both models are run in ETABS 2017 and the results obtained from them are compared.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Result are obtained from analysis of both the Etabs models in which one has dynamic wind analysis loads
and other has wind tunnel analysis load and the parameters like base shear, Deflection and Drift are compared.

3.1 Base Shear Results

Base shear is an estimate of the maximum expected lateral force that will occur due to wind or seismic ground
motion at the base of a structure.

Base shear in X – direction by dynamic wind analysis model is found out to be 13295.5 kN
Base shear in X – direction by wind tunnel analysis model is found out to be 10480 kN
Base shear in Y – direction by dynamic wind analysis model is found out to be 14318 kN
Base shear in Y – direction by wind tunnel analysis model is found out to be 8508.8 kN

htytp: // www.ijesrt.com© International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology

[152]

IJESRT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 ISSN: 2277-9655
[Deshmukh et al., 9(7): July, 2020] Impact Factor: 5.164
IC™ Value: 3.00 CODEN: IJESS7
Base Shear ( kN )

16000
28.8 % more 68 % more
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
X Y
Dynamic Wind Wind Tunnel

Figure 8. Base Shear Comparison of dynamic wind analysis and wind tunnel analysis

3.2 Deflection Results

Deflection is the absolute value of displacement of the storey under action of the lateral forces.

Deflection in X – direction by dynamic wind analysis model is found out to be 284.81 mm

Deflection in X – direction by wind tunnel analysis model is found out to be 272.5 mm
Deflection in Y – direction by dynamic wind analysis model is found out to be 341.3 mm
Deflection in Y – direction by wind tunnel analysis model is found out to be 306.9 mm

Deflection ( mm )
400
11.2 % more
350
5 % more
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
X Y
Dynamic Wind Wind Tunnel

Figure 9. Deflection Comparison of dynamic wind analysis and wind tunnel analysis

htytp: // www.ijesrt.com© International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology

[153]

IJESRT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 ISSN: 2277-9655
[Deshmukh et al., 9(7): July, 2020] Impact Factor: 5.164
IC™ Value: 3.00 CODEN: IJESS7

3.3 Drift Results

Drift defined as the lateral frame deflection at the top of the most occupied floor divided by the height of the
building to that level, Δ/H.
Drift in X – direction by dynamic wind analysis model is found out to be 0.001912
Drift in X – direction by wind tunnel analysis model is found out to be 0.001874
Drift in Y – direction by dynamic wind analysis model is found out to be 0.001984
Drift in Y – direction by wind tunnel analysis model is found out to be 0.001669

Drift Ratio
0.0025

2.02 % more 18.8 % more

0.002

0.0015

0.001

0.0005

0
X Y

Dynamic Wind Wind Tunnel

Figure 10. Drift ratio Comparison of dynamic wind analysis and wind tunnel analysis

4. CONCLUSION
In this study, wind analysis is carried out for a tall building by using two different methods. The two methods are
dynamic analysis (Gust factor method) by using is 875-2015 and wind-tunnel analysis. The loads obtain from the
above methods are applied to the respective etabs model and the results (base shear, deflection and storey drift)
are compared.

Following conclusions are drawn from this study:

 The base shear of building obtained from dynamic-wind analysis is 28.8% more than the base shear
obtained by wind-tunnel analysis in the X direction. The base shear obtained from dynamic-wind analysis
is 68% more than the base shear obtained by wind tunnel analysis in the Y direction.
 The deflection of building obtained from dynamic-wind analysis is 5% more than the deflection obtained
by wind tunnel analysis in the X direction. The deflection obtain from dynamic-wind analysis is 11.2%
more than the deflection obtained by wind tunnel analysis in the Y direction.
 The Storey Drift of building obtained from dynamic-wind analysis is 2.02% more than the Storey Drift
obtained by wind tunnel analysis in the X direction. The Storey Drift obtain from dynamic-wind analysis
is 18.8% more than the Storey Drift obtained by wind tunnel analysis in the Y direction.
 As we compare, the dynamic wind analysis results are higher than wind tunnel analysis results so it can
say that dynamic wind analysis by IS code 875 2015 provide more factor of safety. On the other hand
wind tunnel analysis of building gives more accurate wind forces based on actual site condition.

htytp: // www.ijesrt.com© International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology

[154]

IJESRT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 ISSN: 2277-9655
[Deshmukh et al., 9(7): July, 2020] Impact Factor: 5.164
IC™ Value: 3.00 CODEN: IJESS7

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude towards my guide Dr. M. R. Shiyekar, Professor,
Applied Mechanics Department, Government College of Engineering, Karad, for his well-formulated and
indispensable guidance in the accomplishment of this report, without which this would not have been possible.

REFERENCES
[1] Dragoiescu.C, Garber.J and Kumar.S,”A Comparison of Force Balance and Pressure Integration
Techniques for Predicting Wind-Induced Responses of Tall Buildings", RWDI N1K 1B8, 2006.
[2] P. Mendis, T. Ngo, N. Haritos, A. Hira, "Wind Loading on Tall Buildings", EJSE Special Issue: Loading
on Structures, 2007.
[3] B. Dean Kumar and B.L.P. Swami,"Wind effects on tall building frames-influence of dynamic
parameters", Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 5, 2010.
[4] Halder, L. and Dutta, "Wind effects on multi-storied buildings: a critical review of indian codal
provisions with special reference to American standard", Asian Journal Of Civil Engineering (Building
And Housing), Vol. 11 No. 3, pages 345-370, 2010.
[5] I.srikanth and b.vamsi krishna, "study on the effect of gustloads on tall buildings", Vol. 3, No. 3, IJSCER
Vol. 3, No. 3, 2014.
[6] Zheng-wei Zhang, Michael H. Sien, Alex P., “Across-wind load on rectangular tall buildings”, Article
in IStructE, 2017.
[7] Gangisetty.Venkata.Krishna, Ratnesh Kumar, “Issues In Design Of Tall Concrete Buildings In India
With Reference To IS 16700: 2017 Code”, ACMS, 2018.
[8] IS: 875 Part 3 (2015) “Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than Earthquake) for
Buildings and Structures”, Part 3, Wind Loads Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 2015.
[9] Sharma, V.R., “Spectral Characteristics and Extreme Value Analysis for Winds in India and Codal
Provisions”. Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
Department of Civil Engineering, I.T.I., Delhi, New Delhi-110016, India, 1993.
[10] Sharma, V.R. and Seetharamulu, K. and Chaudhary K. K.,”Extreme Winds and Revised Codal
Provisions”, Proceedings, National Seminar on Wind loads- Codal Provisons, 6-7 April,1994, SREC,
Ghaziabad.pp.4-1 to 4-16, 1994.
[11] Virpal,Kaur, ”Reliability of Multi-storeyed steel Buildings to Wind Loading as per Indian Codal
Provisions”, Thesis submitted to the Punjab Agricultural University in partial fulfillment of the
requirement of the degree of Masters of Technology (Structural Engineering), Department of Civil
Engineering, C.O.A.E., P.A.U. Ludhiana, 2003.
[12] IS: 16700 (2017), “Criteria for structural safety of tall concrete building”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, India, 2017.

htytp: // www.ijesrt.com© International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology

[155]

IJESRT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.