CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Wind effects are the challenges that designers have to deal with in super-tall building design. In
association with high slenderness, low natural frequencies, low inherent damping level and high
wind speed at upper lever, super-tall buildings are more susceptible to winds, particularly to
vortex shedding excitations. Not only wind loads, the wind-induced building motions are also
within the scope of design to enhancing performance, such as comfort level for building
occupancy. It is well known that the behavior of wind response is largely determined by building
shapes. Considerations on aerodynamic optimization in early architectural design stage are
proved to be the most efficient way in wind-resistant design. Wind-resistant design and
aerodynamic optimization are the modern topics in building design community. However, its
practice and success projects can be traced back a long time ago.In ancient China, tall buildings
appear to be traditional pagodas. Some of them even meet the modern definition of super-tall
shape. Usually the design of the external shape and orientation of buildings is driven by
architectural considerations, functional requirements and site limitations, rather than by
aerodynamic considerations. This, most of the times, results in structures becoming bluff bodies
characterized by high wind-structure interaction induced loads. These effects can be significantly
reduced through novel aerodynamic mitigation techniques and optimal aerodynamic shape
design procedures.

1|P ag e
 CHAPTER 2
AERODYNAMIC FORCES ON BUILDINGS
A structure immersed in a given flow field is subjected to aerodynamic forces. For typical
tall buildings, aerodynamic forces includes are drag (along-wind) forces, lift (across-wind)
forces and torsional moments. The alongwind forces act in the direction of the mean flow.
The alongwind motion primarily result from pressure fluctuations on windward and leeward
faces and generally follows fluctuations in the approaching flow.
The crosswind forces act perpendicular to the direction of mean wind flow. The common source
of crosswind motion is associated with ‘vortex shedding’. Tall buildings are bluff as opposed to
streamlined bodies that cause the flow to separate from the surface of structure, rather than
follow the body contours. For a particular building, the shed vortices have a dominant periodicity
defined by the Strouhal number. Hence, the building is subjected to periodic cross pressure
loading which results in an alternating crosswind forces.
The torsional motion is developed due to imbalance in the instantaneous pressure distribution on
each face of the building. In other words, if the distance between elastic center of the structure
and aerodynamic center is large, the structure is subjected to torsional moments that may
significantly affect the structural design. It has been recognized that for many high-rise
buildings, the crosswind and torsional responses may exceed the alongwind response in terms of
both limit state and serviceability designs

2|P ag e
 CHAPTER 3
SERVICEABILITY REQUIREMENTS
The design of typical structure requires the engineering of system that efficiently and effectively
carries the anticipated lifetime loads. The increase in height, often accompanied with increased
flexibility and even low damping, caused the structure becomes even more susceptible to the
action of the wind, which governs the design of the lateral system. While a given design may
satisfactorily carry all the loads, the structure may still suffer from levels of motion causing
significant discomfort to its occupants. Wind-induced serviceability issues are of concern in two
areas; (1) building envelope performance under wind-induced deformations, and (2) occupant
discomfort due to building motion. Thus many design modifications are explicitly incorporated,
be they aerodynamic or structural, to improve the performance of structure to meet the
serviceability or perception requirements. Before discussing the various aerodynamic techniques
to reduce the wind-induced responses, serviceability requirements are briefly discussed in
subsequent paragraph. For the performance of the building envelope to be adequate, the peak
interstorey drift must not exceed 1/300 to 1/500 of the storey height under unfactored loads,
although this criterion may vary depending on type of cladding or glazing and cladding
attachment details. In absolute terms, interstory drift should not exceed 10 mm unless special
details allow nonstructural partitions, cladding, or glazing to accommodate larger drift. However
this criterion must also be qualified, depending on specific building features. Occupant comfort
is affected by the visual perception of building oscillations. Wind induced motions have various
categories like the sway motion of the first two bending modes termed along and acrosswind
motions, a higher mode of torsional motion about the vertical axis, or for buildings with stiffness
and mass irregularities, complex bending and torsion in the lower modes. Any of these motions
can be quite unnerving and unsettling to the occupants and symptoms may range from concern,
anxiety, fear to headaches. It is hypothesized that occupant comfort is affected by rapid changes
of acceleration, but unfortunately, no criteria based on such changes have been developed so far.
The occupant perception of accelerations is highly uncertain and complex, therefore criteria on
acceptable accelerations vary among codes and practioners. For example, in typical North
American practice the allowable peak ground acceleration with 10-year MRIs is taken as 10-15
milli-g (0.1-0.15 m/s2) at the top floor for residential buildings and 20-25 milli-g (0.2-0.25 m/s2)
for office buildings. However, it has been determined that acceptable acceleration levels decrease
as the oscillation frequency increases, so it has been suggested that these limits be reduced for
higher frequencies of vibration,

3|P ag e
 CHAPTER 4
AERODYNAMIC MODIFICATIONS TO BUILDING SHAPE
AND CORNER

4.1 Geometry
Wind-induced motion of a tall building can be controlled either by reduction at the source or by
reducing the response. An appropriate choice of building shape and aerodynamic modifications
can result in the reduction of motion by altering the flow pattern around a building.
Minor modifications: aerodynamic modifications having almost negligible effects on the
structural and architectural concept, for examples corner modifications like fitting of fins, fitting
of vented fins, slotted corners, chamfered corners, corner recession, roundness of corners and
orientation of building in relation to the most frequent strong wind direction.
Major modifications: aerodynamic modifications having considerable effects on the structural
and architectural concept, for examples setbacks along the height, tapering effects, opening at
top, sculptured building tops, varying the shape of buildings, setbacks, twisting of building etc.

4.2 Effects of Fins and Vented fins

The aerodynamic modifications to basic square cross-sectional shape of buildings by using small
fins or vented fins have significant effects on the alongwind and crosswind response
characteristics. Small fins/vanes fitted to the corners of a prismatic building with a gap between
the vanes and the corner can help to alleviate negative pressures under the separated shear layers
on the side faces. However, the added drag introduced by these vanes increases the along wind
responses.

4.3 Effects of Slotted corners, Chamfered corners and Corner recession

Investigations have established that corner modifications such as slotted corners, chamfered
corners/corner cut, corner recession are in general effective in causing significant reductions in
both the alongwind and crosswind responses compared to basic building plan shape. The
modification of windward corners is very effective to reduce the drag and fluctuating lift through
changing the characteristics of the separated shear layers to promote their reattachment and
narrow the width of wake. This type of modifications is also effective to suppress the aeroelastic
instability.

4|P ag e
5|P ag e
6|P ag e
 CHAPTER 5
LITERATURE REVIEW
Yi Li , Xiang Tian , Kong Fah Tee , Qiu-Sheng Li , Yong-Gui Li (2018) studied
“Aerodynamic treatments for reduction of wind loads on high-rise buildings”[1]. Their
paper investigates the effect of building corner modification on high rise buildings. For
investigation of the effects of building corner modifications on reduction of wind loads on
high-rise buildings, a benchmark square model and three corner modified models including
recessed, chamfered and rounded are tested by pressure measurements in a boundary layer
wind tunnel. Based on the experimental results, mean wind pressure coefficients, base
moment coefficients, local wind force coefficients, power spectral densities and vertical
correlation coefficients of the three corner modified models are discussed and compared with
those of the square model to provide comprehensive evaluations of the effects of the
aerodynamic treatments on reductions of the wind loads. Based on the extensive wind tunnel
test on four models at subcritical Reynolds numbers, this paper investigated the aerodynamic
treatments for reduction of wind loads on square high-rise buildings. The mean wind pressure
coefficients, base moment coefficients, local wind force coefficients, power spectral densities
and vertical correlation coefficients of three modified models with corner cut rate of 10%
were analyzed, discussed and compared with those of the square model. Under the current test
conditions, it was found that the along-wind loads can be greatly reduced at wind direction of
00 by corner chamfered, while the acrosswind loads can also be reduced at the same
unfavorable direction by corner recessed. Corner rounded is not an effective way to reduce
these wind loads compared with the corners recessed and chamfered. In summary,
aerodynamic treatments such as corners recessed and chamfered are very helpful for the
reduction of wind loads on highrise buildings.

Abdollah Baghaei Daemei, Elham Mehrinejad Khotbehsara, Erfan Malekian

Nobarani , Payam Bahrami (2018) studied “Study on wind aerodynamic and flow
characteristics of triangularshaped tall buildings and CFD simulation in order to assess
drag coefficient” [2]Their paper studies the effect of aerodynamic modification of triangular
high rise building. Tall modern buildings are extremely sensitive to the wind. Thus,
assessment of wind loads to design these buildings is essential. The purpose of this study is
first to introduce a theoretical framework and simultaneously express basic aerodynamic
studies. Furthermore, assessments are made to reduce drag coefficient performance of
aerodynamic modification approaches including chamfered, rounded, and recessed corners as
well as the performance of aerodynamic formations namely, set-back, taper, and 45-deg
helical in a tall triangular building of about 120 m (40 stories). CFD simulation of this study is
done by Autodesk Flow Design 2014. Building scales are presumed to be B = 1/6H. The
results show that aerodynamic modification of rounded-corners, tapered are capable to cause a
reduction in the drag coefficient of the building by 66% and 24%, respectively. Moreover, the
technique of aerodynamic modification is approximately 74% more efficient to meet wind
effect than aerodynamic form techniques.

7|P ag e
 Maryam Asghari Mooneghi Ramtin Kargarmoakhar (2016) studied “Aerodynamic
Mitigation and Shape Optimization of Buildings: Review”[3]. Their paper studies the
effect of aerodynamic shape of the buildings with respect to wind loading. The shape and
orientation of most buildings are driven mainly by architectural considerations, functional
requirements and site lim-itations , rather than by aerodynamic considerations. Consequently,
these structures are characterized by high wind-structure interac tion induced loads.
Significant reduction in wind loads can be achieved by various types of aerodynamic
modifications to the shape of the structure and /or aerodynamic shape optimization
techniques .In this paper the past/recent work on various techniques developed by many
researchers to reduce wind loads on buildings were reviewed. The aerodynamic modifications
of a building’s cross-sectional shape (e.g. corner cut,corner recession, slotted corner, etc.),
variation of the cross section shape and/or its size along the height of building, twisting the
building, porosity and openings, etc. can significantly reduce building response in along wind
(dragforce) as well as across wind (across wind force due to vortex shedding) directions by
altering the wind flow characteristics around the building.

Ashutosh Sharma, Hemant Mittal, Ajay Gairola (2018) studied “Mitigation of wind
load on tall buildings through aerodynamic modifications: Review”[4].Their paper studies
the response of different aerodynamic shapes of buildings with respect to wind loading. With
the advancement in construction and engineering techniques, a pragmatic shift in architectural
designs of tall buildings can be observed. The buildings are going taller and unconventional
shaped rather than traditional. Generally shape and orientation of the building are determined
on the basis of architectural and practical considerations, but the wind-induced excitations
encouraged by bluffness of the building shapes cannot be neglected also. To safeguard the
functional requirement of tall flexible buildings and to mitigate the excitations, various
methods are available. Among these methods, aerodynamic modification techniques are very
potent, which affect the mechanism of vortex shedding phenomenon considerably and have
got a lot of attention in recent years. Based on the impact of modification on the outer
architecture of the building, the aerodynamic modifications are categorized in two groups i.e.
minor modifications (corner cut, rounding, chamfer etc.) and major modifications (taper, set-
back, twist etc.). The present study comprehensively reviews the recent/past aerodynamic
modification techniques applied to high-rise buildings.

Ryan Merrick and Girma Bitsuamlak (2009) studied “Shape Effects On The Wind-
Induced Response Of High-Rise Buildings”[5]. Their paper explores the effect of building
shape on the wind-induced response of a structure through a comprehensive investigation of
wind tunnel studies. The study focused on buildings with foot prints of square, circular,
triangular, rectangular and elliptical shapes. Load patterns attributed to the cross-sectional
shape of the structure were observed in the results. To provide a baseline value for the wind
loads, the computed responses for the seeds were compared against the values given by the
2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) and the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) 7-05 Standard. The base load comparisons illustrated how certain building

8|P ag e
 shapes perform in wind events. Peak loads are caused by vortex shedding, which is identified
by the signature high dynamic spikes and zero mean-loading values. The code calculated wind
loads from the ASCE 7-05 and NBCC 2005 demonstrate good agreement when estimating the
drag moments and shears, but fail to forecast the peak lift loads. Building designers should be
aware of this occurrence and investigate methods to remedy the problem, or employ wind
testing techniques to quantify the lift loading. The mitigation technique of corner modification
was used by Irwin (2008) for the Taipei 101 Tower, and a 25% reduction on the base sway
moments was reported. Browne et al. (2005) also discusses the efficiency of balconies located
at corners in disrupting the formation of coherent vortices, which is the main source of lift
forces. The data indicate certain shapes that are prone to wind phenomena, such as vortex-
shedding, which can generate high dynamic loads and govern the design. Elliptical, triangular
and rectangular shaped buildings were identified as being more susceptible to high torsion
loading.

J.A. Amin and A.K. Ahuja (2010) studied “Aerodynamic Modifications To The
Shape Of The Buildings: A Review Of The State-Of-The-Art”[6]. This review paper
presents an overview and a summary of past/recent work on various aerodynamic
modifications to the shape of the buildings like corner cuts, chamfering of corners, rounding
of corners, horizontal and vertical slots, dropping of corners, tapering etc. to reduce the wind
excitation of tall flexible buildings and its application in some of the tall buildings across the
world. It was noticed that aerodynamic modification to the building shape like, slotted and
chamfered corners, horizontal and vertical through building openings, roundness of corners,
tapering and dropping of corners can significantly reduce the wind excitation of tall buildings.
Modifications to the building corners such as slotted or chamfered corners need to be applied
to the corner region greater than about 10% of the building breadth to be beneficial.
 The plan shape, which has a lower Stroughal Number, is beneficial and it is a parameter,
which can offer significant benefit when correctly selected.
 The corner roundness is the most effective to suppress the aeroelastic instability for a
square building. The amplitude of the wind-induced vibration reduces as the extent of the
corner roundness increases.
 Tapering effect has a more significant effect in acrosswind direction than that in
alongwind direction.
 The through building opening along the alongwind and crosswind direction, particularly
at top significantly reduces the wind excitation of the building.

Ahmed Elshaer, G. T. Bitsuamlak, Ashraf El Damatty (2015) studied “ Aerodynamic shape

optimization for corners of tall buildings using CFD”[7] This paper shows the effect of improving
the aerodynamic performance of tall buildings by modifying their outer shape. Corner shape mitigation
is one of the most effective modifications that can be applied to tall buildings due to its minor effect on
both structural and architectural design. This study introduces an optimization framework, which
couples the optimization algorithm, the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solver, and the neural
networks (NN) model in an automated procedure. In this study, a robust aerodynamic shape
optimization (ASO) framework was introduced by combining the genetic algorithm (GA), the
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) solver, and the neural networks (NN) model as a

9|P ag e
 surrogate model. An illustration example was used to demonstrate the capability of the
developed framework. The framework was able to predict the optimal corner shape of a
building to minimize the drag. Using GA as an optimization technique has major advantages,
which are: 1) it does not require initial guessing values for the design variables, and 2) it
usually avoid being trapped in local minima. Simplifying the CFD analysis model will result in
a significant reduction in the computational cost. NN was found to be a reliable surrogate
model for objective function estimation.

Hugo Hernández Barrios, Iván Francisco Huergo Ríos, Carlos Arce León (2017) studied “
Analysis of aerodynamic configuration of high-rise buildings in Mexico”[8]. This paper studies the
effect of aerodynamic shapes of high rise buildings in Mexico. There is an emphasis on those buildings
that have a streamlined shape at the bottom and a geometrical variation at the top, the ones whose area
in the top stories reduces or the ones that have elements such as cavities and changes on the façade’s
slope, which allow a decrease of lateral displacements on the top floors. Paying attention to the
aerodynamics of the buildings top secures improvements not only in the along-wind, but also in the
across-wind building response, by reducing the effect of wind-induced turbulence, as vortex shedding
forces. To reduce the across-wind response of the building, the optimum location for the along-wind
openings is positioned between 80% and 90% of the building height. Aerodynamic architectural
modifications consist of corner modifications that do not significantly alter the existing architectural
design. Modifications to corner geometry by means of recessed, cut, slotted and rounded corner reduced
the across-wind building response, as compared with an original building shape with sharp corner. In a
prismatic building, receded, cut, slotted and rounded corners can reduce the along-wind and across-
wind building response to an important degree. A chamfered (receded, cut) corner, reduces the width of
the building by 10% compared with a sharp corner. Consequently, the along-wind building´s response
is reduced by 40% and the across-wind building´s response by 30%.

Ahmed Elshaer, Girma Bitsuamlak , Ashraf El Damatty (2016), in “Enhancing wind

performance of tall buildings using corner aerodynamic optimization”[9] This paper
introduces a robust aerodynamic optimization procedure that combines Genetic Algorithm,
Large Eddy Simulation and Artificial Neural Network models. During the optimization
procedure, ANN model is used to evaluate the objective function once trained with the
aerodynamic data generated through 3D LES analyses of a 2D flow. Two optimization
examples are presented to demonstrate the proposed optimization procedure aiming at reducing
the drag and lift forces, respectively. A final verification is carried out through 3D LES
analyses of ABL flow interaction with the optimal and the near optimal building crosssections.
Aerodynamic properties of the near optimal shapes are compared to other cross-sections the
following conclusions are deduced:

 Comparison of the aerodynamic behavior of the optimal building shape to the other near
optimal ones using 3D LES of both 2D flow and ABL flows shows a similar trend. Thus,
lowdimensional flow analyses could be sufficient to indicate the relative performance of
the shapes with a more time-efficient analyses (i.e. around 150 times faster than ABL
flow analyses).

10 | P a g e
  The surrogate ANN model is capable of capturing complex variations in the objective
function and fitting the training database with a correlation coefficient of 0.979, and its
use accelerates the optimization process significantly.
 For the drag optimization example, the mean drag coefficient (CD) is lowered by 30%
for the optimal shape compared to the sharp edge corner. For the lift optimization
example, the standard deviation of the lift coefficient (C0L) is reduced by 24% for the
optimal corner as compared to the sharp edge one.
 _The optimal cross-section, in the drag optimization problem, shows lower dynamic
responses compared to other near optimal shapes by 29%. Whereas, the lift optimization
results in a 52% reduction in the dynamic responses compared to other near optimal
shapes.
 In general, the aerodynamic optimization efficiency coupled with the encouraging
development in computational capacity is expected to encourage architects, urban
planners and engineers to seek for more optimal solutions while designing building for
climate.

Jiming Xie (2012) studied “Aerodynamic optimization in super-tall building

designs”[10] This paper introduces an aerodynamic optimization procedure to mitigate wind
effects on super-tall buildings. To ensure the structure safety in strong winds and control the
wind-induced motion of super-tall buildings, aerodynamic optimization is considered to be the
most efficient way, because the aerodynamic optimization is aimed at the source of problems.
However, aerodynamic optimization can be at the cost of other design aspects, such as
increased construction cost, reduced usable space and/or increased construction difficulties.
Therefore, the aerodynamic optimization can only be reached by interdisciplinary collaboration
between wind engineers and architects. This paper summarizes the aerodynamic approaches
that have been used in building design, and discusses the principles and effectiveness of these
approaches. To provide a guideline for building aerodynamic optimizations, this paper
proposes an approach of assessing the effects of tapering, twisting and set-back, three common
schemes in super-tall building design for wind response reductions with limited wind tunnel
tests. Two categories of optimization are discussed in the paper: aerodynamic modifications
which are mostly considered as remedial measures with a limitation of not making significant
changes on buildings overall geometry or visual image; and aerodynamic designs which are
feasible only with collaboration with architects in early design stage and can be very effective.
While aerodynamic modifications mostly involved building corner treatments, aerodynamic
designs have much more freedom in building geometry including overall building elevation
optimizations, such as tapering, twisting, opening, set-back, top sculpture, etc. But
aerodynamic designs are also limited by other design aspects, such as cladding, internal
spacing, etc. The method proposed in this paper can be used to assess the effectiveness of
various aerodynamic optimization schemes in order to achieve a balance between aerodynamic
satisfaction and fulfillment of other design aspects.

11 | P a g e
H. Emre Ilgin and M. Halis Gunel studied “The role of aerodynamic modifications in the
form of tall buildings against wind excitation”[11] This paper studies the effects of different
aerodynamic modifications on modern day tall buildings. Different design methods and
modifications are possible in order to ensure the functional performance of flexible structures
and control the wind induced motion of tall buildings. An extremely important and effective
design approach among these methods is aerodynamic modifications in architecture. On the basis
of wind tunnel tests on tall buildings available in literature, it is noticed that some aerodynamic
modifications can significantly mitigate wind excitation of tall buildings. The suggested
modifications in this paper are advisable and thought to be used as assistive design tools. If an
architect takes these facts into consideration, no or less modification will be needed at wind
tunnel testing stage. An appropriate choice of building shape can result in a significant reduction
of aerodynamic forces by changing the flow pattern around the building. This way of treatment
can moderate wind responses when compared to original building shape. From the wind
engineer’s point of view, aerodynamic modifications such as setback, tapering, sculptured
building tops, corner modifications, and addition of openings completely through the building
are very effective design methods of controlling wind excitation. Aerodynamic modifications can
significantly mitigate wind excitation of tall buildings, but can not eliminate them totally, and
additional preventions like ‘tuned mass damper’ may be needed.

Enrica Bernardini, Seymour M.J. Spence, Daniel Wei, Ahsan Kareem studied
“Aerodynamic Shape Optimisation of civil structures: A CFD-enabled kriging-based
approach”[12] This paper studies the mitigation of intensity of wind excitation through
aerodynamic modification of external shape of structures such as tall building and long span
bridges. The paper investigates the possibility of carrying out multi-objective aerodynamic shape
optimization of civil structures through an approach in which evolutionary algorithms are used in
synergy with ordinary kriging surrogates.A specifically developed strategy is adoptedto update
the kriging models making efficient use of additional CFD runs.The following conclusions are
deduced.
This paper reported an innovative aerodynamic shape optimization strategy for the identification
of optical shapes of civil structures. The applicability of proposed strategy was investigated on a
case study represented by the cross- section of a cylindrical tall building. The result of this case
study clearly illustrated the potential of the approach. Indeed in order to find an estimate off the
pareto font of the problem, only 0.75% of CFD simulations that would have been necessary to
directly estimate the ffront were needed.
Certain discrepancy between aerodynamic measures predicted by ordinary Kriging model and
the actual values assumed by the measures was observed. This paper suggests the strong
potential of surrogate-based multiobjective optimization schemes for obtaining aerodynamic
configuration of civil structures that effectively reduce their aerodynamic impact.

Dong-Xue Zhao, Bao-Jie He studied “Effects of architectural shapes on surface wind

pressure distribution : Case studies off oval shaped tall buildings”[13]
Starting from enlarging the wind pressure difference to create natural wind driven ventilation,
this paper analyze characteristics off surface pressure coefficients over tall building and to
identify the influence of building shapes on coefficient distribution. It mathematically

12 | P a g e
investigates the effects of height width ratio and height thickness ratio on mean wind pressure
coefficients of oval shaped building surface. This paper concludes that in building design natural
ventilation is a very good way to improve indoor air quality. This paper starting from the
principle that large wind pressure difference can generate better natural ventilation potential, has
analyzed the characteristics of wind pressure coefficients on oval shaped tall buildings. Through
numerical simulation of wind field around a series of high rise buildings with various elliptical
planes, the conclusion drawn is that-
In the HWR scenario mean coefficients on the windward side, side surface and leeward side
shown a trend of growth along the HWR. Due to decrease of HWR the blocking effects of
building enlarged, wind exerted stronger effects on both windward side and leeward side.
In case of HTR scenario wind coefficients on windward side and top surface were greatly
affected by HTR, where coefficients on all surfaces decrease with decrease of HTR values.

13 | P a g e
 REFFERENCES
1. Yi Li , Xiang Tian , Kong Fah Tee , Qiu-Sheng Li , Yong-Gui Li “Aerodynamic
treatments for reduction of wind loads on high-rise buildings” Journal of Wind
Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 172 (2018) 107–115
2. Abdollah Baghaei Daemei, Elham Mehrinejad Khotbehsara, Erfan Malekian
Nobarani , Payam Bahrami “Study on wind aerodynamic and flow characteristics of
triangularshaped tall buildings and CFD simulation in order to assess drag coefficient”
Ain Shams Engineering Journal (2018).
3. Maryam Asghari Mooneghi Ramtin Kargarmoakhar “Aerodynamic Mitigation and
Shape Optimization of Buildings: Review” Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016)
225–235.
4. Ashutosh Sharma, Hemant Mittal, Ajay Gairola “Mitigation of wind load on tall
buildings through aerodynamic modifications: Review” Journal of Building Engineering
18 (2018) 180–194.
5. Ryan Merrick and Girma Bitsuamlak “Shape Effects On The Wind-Induced
Response Of High-Rise Buildings” Journal of Wind and Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, July
(2009), pp. 1-18.
6. J.A. Amin and A.K. Ahuja (2010) “Aerodynamic Modifications To The Shape Of The
Buildings: A Review Of The State-Of-The-Art” Asian Journal Of Civil Engineering
(Building And Housing) Vol. 11, No. 4 (2010) Pages 433-450.
7. Ahmed Elshaer, G. T. Bitsuamlak, Ashraf El Damatty “ Aerodynamic shape optimization
for corners of tall buildings using CFD” 14th International Conference on Wind
Engineering (ICWE), At Porto Alegre, Brazil
8. Hugo Hernández Barrios, Iván Francisco Huergo Ríos, Carlos Arce León “ Analysis of
aerodynamic configuration of high-rise buildings in Mexico” Conference: 6th Structural
Engineers World Congress, At Cancún, México.
9. Ahmed Elshaer, Girma Bitsuamlak , Ashraf El Damatty , “Enhancing wind
performance of tall buildings using corner aerodynamic optimization” Engineering
Structures 136 (2017) 133–148
10. Jiming Xie “Aerodynamic optimization in super-tall building designs” The Seventh
International Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and its Applications (BBAA7)
Shanghai, China; September 2-6, 2012
11. H. Emre Ilgin and M. Halis Gunel “The role of aerodynamic modifications in the form
of tall buildings against wind excitation” .
12. Enrica Bernardini, Seymour M.J. Spence, Daniel Wei, Ahsan Kareem “Aerodynamic
Shape Optimisation of civil structures: A CFD-enabled kriging-based approach” Jaurnal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.
13. Dong-Xue Zhao, Bao-Jie He studied “Effects of architectural shapes on surface wind
pressure distribution : Case studies off oval shaped tall buildings” Journal of building
engineering 12(2017) 219-228.

14 | P a g e