International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 05 | May 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
HEIGHT-DEPENDENT WIND RESPONSE CHARACTERIZATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE VERTICAL BUILDING SYSTEMS
Suraj Kumar Gupta1, Mr. Ushendra Kumar2
1Master of Technology, Civil Engineering, Lucknow Institute of Technology, Lucknow, India
2Head of Department, Department of Civil Engineering, Lucknow Institute of Technology, Lucknow, India
Abstract - Theincreasing demandforverticalconstruction in urbanenvironments has intensifiedthesignificanceofwind effects in the design of reinforced concrete (RC) building systems. As building height increases, structural response becomes highlysensitivetolateralwindloads, necessitatinga detailed understanding of height-dependent behavior. This study investigates the wind-induced response characteristics of a G+16 RC building using five different structural configurations developed through three-dimensional finite element modeling in SAP2000. Wind loads are applied in accordance with IS 875 (Part 3):2015 using the equivalent static method. Key response parameters, including lateral displacement, storey drift, base shear, and fundamental time period, areevaluatedandcomparedacrossmodels.Theresults indicate that lateral displacement increases nonlinearly with height, with maximum values occurring at the top storey, while peak storey drift is observed in the mid-to-upper levels. The incorporation of shear walls significantly enhances structural stiffness, reducing displacement and drift by approximately 35–55% compared to the bare frame system. Dual and optimized structural configurations demonstrate superior performance, offering improved stability and serviceability under wind loading. Additionally, an inverse relationship between structural stiffness and fundamental timeperiod is observed. Thefindings providevaluableinsights intotheselectionofefficient structuralsystemsformid-riseRC buildings and contribute to improved wind-resistant design practices.
Key Words: Wind load, Reinforced concrete, Heightdependent response, Lateral displacement, Storey drift, Shear wall systems, SAP2000, Structural optimization
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Urbanization and Growth of Vertical Infrastructure
Rapidurbanizationhassignificantlytransformedthebuilt environment, particularly in developing countries where populationgrowthandlimitedlandavailabilitynecessitate vertical expansion.Theincreasingdemand for residential, commercial, and institutional spaces has led to the widespread adoption of mid- and high-rise reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. This vertical growth not only optimizes land use but also improves infrastructure
efficiency and urban functionality. Advancements in construction materials, structural systems, and analytical tools have further enabled engineers to design taller and more complex buildings with enhanced safety and performance. However, as building height increases, the influence of lateral loads becomes more critical, shifting designfocusfromgravity-dominatedbehaviortolateralload resistance(Taranath,2016).
1.1.2 Increasing Dominance of Wind Loads in Mid/High-Rise Buildings
With increasing building height, wind loads emerge as a governingfactorinstructuraldesign,particularlyinregions withmoderate seismicactivity.Unlike gravityloads,wind loads vary with height and time, producing complex pressure distributions and dynamic effects on structures. Mid-risebuildings,suchasG+16configurations,fallwithina transitionalrangewherewindeffectsbegintosignificantly influencestructuralresponse.Theseeffectsincludelateral displacement,inter-storeydrift,anddynamicamplification due to turbulence and vortex shedding. Standard design provisions, such as IS 875 (Part 3):2015, provide a framework for estimating wind loads; however, they may not fully capture the complexity of wind-structure interactionintallerbuildings(Holmes,2015).
1.1.3 Importance of Structural System Selection
The selection of an appropriate structural system plays a crucial role in determining the performance of buildings under wind loading. Different systems, such as momentresistingframes,shearwallsystems,anddualsystems,offer varying levels of stiffness and load-resisting capacity. Flexiblesystemstendtoexperiencehigherdisplacementand drift,whilestiffersystemsprovidebettercontroloverlateral deformation. Therefore, the choice and configuration of structural elements directly influence both safety and serviceability. Efficient structural system selection is essential not only for controlling wind-induced responses but also for achieving economical and optimized designs (SmithandCoull,1991).
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 05 | May 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
1.2 Wind-Induced Structural Behavior
1.2.1
Along-Wind, Across-Wind,andTorsionalEffects
Wind-induced structural behavior is complex and can be categorized into along-wind, across-wind, and torsional responses.Along-windeffectsoccurinthedirectionofthe mean wind flow and are primarily associated with static pressureactingonthebuildingsurface.Across-windeffects arise due to vortex shedding, which generates oscillatory forcesperpendiculartothewinddirection,oftenleadingto significantdynamicresponseinslenderstructures.Torsional effectsoccurwhenthereisanঅসমmetricaldistributionof mass or stiffness, causing rotational motion about the verticalaxis.Thesecombinedeffectsmakewindanalysisa multidimensionalproblemrequiringdetailedevaluationof structural response under varying conditions (Simiu and Scanlan,2003).
1.2.2 Serviceability Concerns: Displacement, Drift, and Acceleration
Wind-inducedresponsesprimarilyaffecttheserviceability performance of buildings rather than ultimate strength. Lateraldisplacementisakeyindicatorofoverallstructural flexibility and tends to increase with height. Storey drift, defined as the relative displacement between consecutive floors,iscriticalinpreventingdamagetostructuralandnonstructuralcomponents.Excessivedriftcanleadtocracking, façade damage, and functional issues within the building. Additionally, wind-induced acceleration affects occupant comfort, particularly in upper storeys, where perceptible motion can cause discomfort or anxiety. Therefore, controlling displacement, drift, and acceleration within permissiblelimitsisessentialforensuringbothstructural safetyandusercomfort(Kwoketal.,2009).
1.3 Research Gap
1.3.1
Limited Studies on Mid-Rise (G+16) HeightDependent Response
Althoughextensiveresearchhasbeenconductedonlow-rise andverytallbuildings,relativelyfewerstudiesfocusonmidrisestructureswherewindeffectsbegintodominatebutare oftenunderestimated.BuildingsintheG+16rangerepresent atransitionalcategorywherebothstaticanddynamicwind effectsaresignificant.Thelackofdetailedinvestigationinto height-dependent response behavior in such structures creates uncertainty in design practices and highlights the needforfocusedresearchinthisarea.
1.3.2 Lack of Comparative Evaluation of RC Systems under Identical Wind Loads
Existing literature often examines individual structural systems in isolation, without providing a consistent comparativeframework.Thereisanotablelackofstudies
thatevaluatemultipleRCstructuralconfigurations suchas moment-resisting frames, shear wall systems, and dual systems underidenticalgeometricandloadingconditions. This limits the ability to clearly understand the relative efficiency of each system in resisting wind loads and controllingstructuralresponse.
1.3.3 Over-Reliance on Simplified Codal Methods
Design practices frequently rely on simplified codal approaches,suchastheequivalentstaticmethodprescribed inIS875(Part3):2015.Whilethesemethodsarepractical for routine design, they often neglect important dynamic effectssuchasgustresponse,highermodeparticipation,and wind-structure interaction. This over-reliance can lead to eitherconservativeorunconservativedesigns,particularly inmid-tohigh-risebuildings.Consequently,thereisaneed for detailed numerical analysis and performance-based evaluationtoachievemoreaccurateandreliablepredictions ofwind-inducedbehavior(KareemandKijewski,2002).
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Wind Engineering in Tall Buildings
2.1.1
Overview of Wind Behavior and Codal Provisions
Windengineeringplaysavitalroleintheanalysisanddesign of tall buildings, as wind is a highly variable and dynamic environmentalloadthatinteractscomplexlywithstructural systems. Unlike static loads, wind exhibits fluctuations in speed, , and intensity, resulting in both mean and fluctuatingpressurecomponentsactingonbuildingsurfaces. These pressures vary with height, terrain conditions, and surrounding obstructions, making accurate prediction of wind effects a challenging task. To standardize design practices,variouscodesandstandardshavebeendeveloped, such as IS 875 (Part 3):2015 in India, which provides guidelines for calculating wind speed, pressure, and load distribution on structures. However, these provisions are largely based on simplified assumptions and empirical relationships, which may not fully capture complex aerodynamic phenomena such as turbulence and vortex sheddingintallorslenderstructures(Holmes,2015).
2.2 Height-Dependent Response
2.2.1
Displacement and Drift Variation with Height
The response of tall buildings to wind loads is strongly influenced by height, with displacement and storey drift beingthemostcriticalserviceabilityparameters.Asbuilding height increases, structural stiffness generally decreases, resultingingreaterlateralflexibility.Consequently,lateral displacement increases nonlinearly along the height, reachingitsmaximumatthetopstoreyduetocumulative deformation.Storeydrift,ontheotherhand,tendstopeakin
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 05 | May 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
the mid to upper levels, where the combined effects of stiffnessvariationandlateralforcesaremostpronounced. Excessive drift can lead to structural damage and nonstructural failures, making its control essential in design. Studies have consistently shown that taller structures require enhancedstiffnessthroughappropriatestructural systems to limit these deformations within permissible limits(SmithandCoull,1991).
2.2.2 Dynamic Characteristics
Thedynamicbehavioroftallbuildingsisanotherimportant aspect of height-dependent response. As height increases, thenaturalfrequencyofthestructuredecreaseswhilethe fundamentaltimeperiodincreasesduetoreducedstiffness andincreasedmassparticipation.Thismakestallerbuildings moresusceptibletodynamicexcitationcausedbyfluctuating wind forces. When the frequency of wind-induced forces approachesthenaturalfrequencyofthestructure,resonance may occur, leading to amplified responses. Additionally, higher mode effects become significant in multi-storey buildings,influencinginternalforcedistributionandoverall behavior.Thesedynamiccharacteristicsmustbecarefully evaluatedtoensurestructuralsafetyandoccupantcomfort underwindloadingconditions(Chopra,2017).
2.3 Influence of Structural Systems
2.3.1
MRF vs Shear Wall vs Dual Systems
Thechoiceofstructuralsystemsignificantlyaffectsthewind responseofreinforcedconcretebuildings.MomentResisting Frame(MRF)systemsrelyonbeam-columnactiontoresist lateral loads but are relatively flexible, resulting in higher displacement and drift. In contrast, shear wall systems provide substantial lateral stiffness by acting as vertical cantilevers,effectivelyreducingdeformationandimproving overall stability. Dual systems, which combine momentresistingframeswithshearwalls,offerabalancedapproach by integrating stiffness and ductility. This combination enhancesloaddistributionandreducesstressconcentration, leading to improved performance under wind loading. Comparativestudieshavedemonstratedthatdualsystems outperform individual systems in controlling lateral displacementanddrift,makingthemmoresuitableformidtohigh-risestructures(ZhangandGu,2013).
2.4 Static vs Dynamic Wind Analysis
2.4.1
Limitations of Equivalent Static Method
The equivalent static wind load method is widely used in practiceduetoitssimplicityandeaseofimplementation.It represents wind forces as static loads acting on the structure, which is adequate for low- to moderate-height buildings. However, this approach has several limitations whenappliedtotallerormoreflexiblestructures.Itdoesnot accountfortime-dependenteffectssuchasgustfluctuations,
vortexshedding,andresonance,nordoesitconsiderhigher modeparticipationinmulti-storeybuildings.Asaresult,the staticmethodmayunderestimateoroverestimatestructural response,leadingtoinaccuratedesignoutcomes.Advanced dynamic analysis methods, which incorporate fluctuating windforcesandstructuralvibrationcharacteristics,provide a more realistic representation of wind-induced behavior andareincreasinglyrecommendedfortallbuildingdesign (KareemandKijewski,2002).
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Prototype Building Description
3.1.1
G+16 Reinforced Concrete Building
The present study considers a typical mid-rise reinforced concrete(RC)buildingwithaconfigurationofGroundplus 16storeys(G+16).Thisheightrangeisintentionallyselected asitrepresentsatransitionalcategorywherewindeffects begin to significantly influence structural behavior. The buildingisassumedtobelocatedinanurbanenvironment andisrepresentativeofcommonlyconstructedresidential orcommercialstructures.Theobjectiveistoevaluateheightdependent wind response under realistic yet controlled conditions by maintaining uniformity in geometry and materialpropertiesacrossallanalyticalmodels.
3.1.2
Geometry, Plan Size, and Storey Height
The prototype building is modeled with a regular and symmetric plan to eliminate geometric irregularities and isolate the effect of structural configuration on wind response.Asquareplanof20m×20misadopted,ensuring uniform load distribution and simplified analysis. Each storey is assigned a constant height of 3 m, resulting in a totalbuildingheightofapproximately51m.Thisregularity ingeometryensuresthatvariationsinresultsareprimarily duetodifferencesinstructuralsystemsratherthanplanor elevationirregularities.
3.2 Material Properties
3.2.1
Concrete (M30)
Concreteisconsideredastheprimaryconstructionmaterial forallstructuralelements,includingbeams,columns,slabs, andshearwalls.Inthisstudy,M30gradeconcreteisused, whichiswidelyadoptedinmedium-riseconstructiondueto its adequate compressive strength and durability. The modulus of elasticityistakenas25,000MPa,andtheunit weightisassumedas25kN/m³.Thesepropertiesdirectly influence the stiffness and mass of the structure, thereby affectingitsresponseunderwindloading.
3.2.2 Steel (Fe500)
ReinforcingsteelofgradeFe500isusedtoprovidetensile strength and ductility to the structural elements. The
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 05 | May 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
modulus of elasticity of steel is taken as 200,000 MPa, reflecting its significantly higher stiffness compared to concrete.Thecombinationofconcreteandsteelensuresthat the structure can effectively resist both compressive and tensilestresses,whichisessentialforhandlinglateralloads suchaswind.
3.3 Structural Modeling
3.3.1 3D Finite Element Modeling in SAP2000
The structural analysis is performed using a threedimensionalfiniteelementmodelingapproachinSAP2000. This software enables accurate simulation of structural behavior under various loading conditions. The entire building is discretized into finite elements, allowing for realistic representation of load transfer mechanisms and deformationcharacteristics.Theuseof3Dmodelingensures that both global and local responses of the structure are capturedeffectively.
3.3.2 Beam-Column Elements, Shell Elements, and Rigid Diaphragm Assumption
Beam-columnelementsareusedtomodelframemembers suchasbeamsandcolumns,capturingtheiraxial,shear,and bendingbehavior.Shearwalls,whereincluded,aremodeled usingshellelementstorepresenttheirin-planeandout-ofplane stiffness accurately. Additionally, each floor slab is modeledasarigiddiaphragm,assumingthatitdistributes lateralloadsuniformlytoverticalstructuralelements.This assumption simplifies the analysis while maintaining sufficient accuracy for evaluating overall structural response.
3.4 Structural Configurations
3.4.1
Model 1: Bare Frame (MRF)
Thefirstmodelrepresentsaconventionalmoment-resisting frame(MRF)system,wherelateralloadsareresistedsolely through beam-column action. This model serves as a baseline for comparison due to its relatively low stiffness andhigherflexibility.
3.4.2 Model 2: Central Shear Wall
Inthisconfiguration,ashearwallisintroducedatthecenter of the building plan. The presence of a central core significantly enhances stiffness and provides a direct load pathforlateralforces,reducingdisplacementanddrift.
3.4.3 Model 3: Corner Shear Walls
Thismodelincludesshearwallslocatedatthecornersofthe building.Suchplacementimprovesresistancetobothlateral and torsional effects by providing better stiffness distributionacrosstheplan.
3.4.4
Model 4: Dual System
Thedualsystemcombinesthemoment-resistingframewith shear walls, allowing both systems to share lateral loads. This results in improved structural performance by balancingstiffnessandductility.
3.4.5
Model 5: Optimized Model
Theoptimizedconfigurationrepresentsarefinedstructural arrangementinwhichshearwallsandframeelementsare strategically placed to achieve maximum efficiency. This modelisexpectedtoprovidethebestperformanceinterms ofdisplacementcontrolandoverallstability.
3.5 Loading and Analysis
3.5.1
Dead Load and Live Load (IS 875 Part 2)
Deadloadsincludetheself-weightofstructuralelementsand additionalpermanentloadssuchasfloorfinishesandwall loads.Theseareautomaticallycalculatedbasedonmaterial propertiesandsectiondimensions.Liveloads,representing occupancy and movable loads, are applied as per IS 875 (Part 2) guidelines. These loads contribute to the overall mass and influence the structural response under lateral loading.
3.5.2
Wind Load (IS 875 Part 3:2015)
WindloadsarecalculatedaccordingtoIS875(Part3):2015, considering factors such as basic wind speed, terrain category, height variation, and structural dimensions. The windpressureincreaseswithheightandisappliedaslateral forcesinbothprincipaldirectionsofthebuilding.
3.5.3
Equivalent Static Method
Theanalysisadoptstheequivalentstaticwindloadmethod, inwhichwindforcesarerepresentedasstaticloadsacting onthestructure.Thisapproachsimplifiestheanalysiswhile providing reasonable accuracy for mid-rise buildings. The loadsaredistributedalongtheheightofthestructureand appliedateachfloorlevelthroughdiaphragmaction.
3.6 Response Parameters
3.6.1
Lateral Displacement
Lateraldisplacementreferstothehorizontalmovementof the structure under wind loading. It is a key indicator of overallstructuralflexibilityandistypicallymaximumatthe topstorey.
3.6.2
Storey Drift
Storeydriftisdefinedastherelativedisplacementbetween twoconsecutivefloors.Itisacriticalparameterforassessing
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 05 | May 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
serviceability and must be controlled within permissible limitstopreventstructuralandnon-structuraldamage.
3.6.3 Base Shear
Baseshearrepresentsthetotallateralforcetransferredto the foundation. It reflects the overall demand on the structural system and is influenced by stiffness and load distribution.
3.6.4
FundamentalTimePeriod
Thefundamentaltimeperiodisameasureofthedynamic characteristics of the building, representing its natural vibrationcycle.Itisdirectlyrelatedtothemassandstiffness ofthestructureandplaysasignificantroleindeterminingits responsetowindloads.
4. RESULTS
4.1 Lateral Displacement
4.1.1
Variation Along Height
Theanalysisoflateraldisplacementrevealsaclearheightdependent trend for all structural models. Displacement increases progressively from the base to the top of the building,followinganonlinearpattern.Atlowerstoreys,the displacementremainsrelativelysmallduetohigherstiffness andrestraintconditionsatthefoundationlevel.However,as the height increases, cumulative flexibility and increasing wind pressure result in significantly larger lateral movements. The maximum displacement is consistently observedattherooflevel,whichreflectsthecantilever-like behaviorofmulti-storeybuildingssubjectedtolateralloads. This variation highlights the importance of controlling flexibility, especially in upper storeys where structural responsebecomesmorepronounced.
4.1.2
Comparison Across Models
A comparative evaluation of the five structural configurations indicates substantial variation in displacementvaluesdependingonsystemstiffness.Thebare frame(Model1)exhibitsthehighestdisplacementduetoits inherent flexibility and lack of dedicated lateral loadresistingelements.TheintroductionofshearwallsinModels 2 and 3 significantly reduces displacement by increasing stiffness and providing direct load paths. Among these, corner shear walls perform better than centrally placed wallsduetoimprovedstiffnessdistribution.Thedualsystem (Model 4) further enhances performance by combining frame action with shear wall resistance. The optimized configuration (Model 5) demonstrates the least displacement, confirming that strategic placement of structuralelementsis highlyeffectiveincontrollingwindinducedlateralmovement.
4.2 Storey Drift
4.2.1
Drift Profile
Storey drift shows a distinct variation pattern along the building height, differing from the displacement trend. Instead of increasing continuously, drift values follow a nonlineardistributionwheretheygraduallyincreasefrom thebase,reachapeakinthemid-to-upperstoreys,andthen slightlydecreasetowardthetop.Thisbehaviorisattributed tothecombinedeffectofstiffnessvariationandcumulative displacement along the height. The mid-height region experiences the highest relative deformation between consecutive floors, making it critical for serviceability considerations.
4.2.2 Maximum Drift Location
Themaximumstoreydriftisgenerallyobservedbetweenthe middleandupperstoreysofthebuilding,ratherthanatthe baseorroof.Thisisasignificantfinding,asitindicatesthat the most critical region for potential structural and nonstructural damage lies within this zone. The bare frame systemshowsthehighestdriftvalues,oftenapproachingor exceeding permissible limits, while models incorporating shear walls demonstrate substantial reduction. The optimizedanddualsystemseffectivelycontroldriftwithin acceptablelimits,ensuringimprovedstructuralsafetyand serviceabilityperformance.
4.3 Base Shear
4.3.1
Influence of Stiffness on Force Demand
Baseshearrepresentsthetotallateralforcetransferredto thefoundationandisstronglyinfluencedbythestiffnessof the structural system. The results indicate that stiffer structures tend to attract higher base shear compared to more flexible systems. This occurs because increased stiffnessreducesdeformation,therebyincreasingtheforce demand resisted at the base. Consequently, models with shearwallsanddualsystemsshowhigherbaseshearvalues than the bare frame system. While higher base shear may appear unfavorable, it actually reflects improved load resistance and structural integrity. Therefore, an optimal balancebetweenstiffnessandforcedemandisessentialto achieveefficientandsafedesign.
4.4 Fundamental Time Period
4.4.1
Relation with Stiffness and Configuration
The fundamental time period is a key indicator of the dynamiccharacteristicsofthebuildingandshowsaninverse relationshipwithstructuralstiffness.Flexiblesystems,such asthebareframemodel,exhibithighertimeperiodsdueto theirlowerstiffnessandgreaterdeformability.Incontrast, the inclusion of shear walls significantly reduces the time periodbyincreasingrigidity.Amongallconfigurations,the
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 05 | May 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
optimized and dual systems demonstrate the lowest time periods, indicating superior stiffness and improved resistancetodynamiceffects.Thisreductionintimeperiod alsoimpliesreducedsusceptibilitytoresonanceunderwind excitation, thereby enhancing overall structural performance.
5. CONCLUSION
Thepresentstudyinvestigatedtheheight-dependentwind responseofaG+16reinforcedconcretebuildingusingfive different structural configurations through threedimensional finite element analysis. The results clearly demonstrate that wind-induced structural behavior is stronglyinfluencedbybothbuildingheightandstructural system. Lateral displacement was observed to increase nonlinearly along the height, with maximum values occurringatthetopstoreyduetocumulativeflexibilityand higher wind pressure. In contrast, storey drift exhibited a non-uniform distribution, with peak values located in the mid-to-upper storeys, highlighting critical zones for serviceabilityconcerns.
Amongtheanalyzedmodels,thebareframesystemshowed the highest displacement and drift, indicating inadequate stiffnessforeffectivewindresistanceinmid-risebuildings. The inclusion of shear walls significantly improved structuralperformancebyenhancingstiffnessandreducing deformation.Cornershearwallconfigurationsprovedmore effective than central walls due to better stiffness distributionandreducedtorsionaleffects.Thedualsystem demonstratedfurtherimprovementbycombiningstiffness andductility,whiletheoptimizedmodelprovidedthebest overallperformance.
Additionally, base shear was found to increase with structural stiffness, reflecting higher load resistance capacity, whereas the fundamental time period decreased with increasing stiffness, indicating improved dynamic behavior.Overall,theoptimizedstructuralconfigurationwas identifiedasthemostefficientsystem,offeringabalanced performance in terms of displacement control, drift limitation, and structural stability under wind loading conditions.
5.1. Future Scope of Research
Future research can extend this study by incorporating dynamicwindanalysismethodssuchasgustfactorapproach ortime-historyanalysistocapturefluctuatingwindeffects andresonancebehaviormoreaccurately.Nonlinearmaterial behavior, including cracking and yielding, should be considered to evaluate structural performance under extreme wind conditions. Further studies may explore a widerrangeofbuildingheightsandaspectratiostoestablish generalized design trends. The inclusion of soil-structure interaction would provide a more realistic assessment of foundation behavior. Additionally, aerodynamic
modifications such as tapered or setback forms can be investigated for reducing wind effects. Experimental validation through wind tunnel testing and comparative studiesusinginternationaldesigncodeswouldenhancethe reliabilityandapplicabilityofthefindings.
REFERENCES
1. Chopra,A.K.,2017.DynamicsofStructures:Theoryand ApplicationstoEarthquake Engineering. 5th ed.New Delhi:PearsonEducation.
2. Holmes,J.D.,2015.WindLoadingofStructures.3rded. BocaRaton:CRCPress.
3. Kareem, A. and Kijewski, T., 2002. Wind-induced motionoftallbuildings:Reviewandrecommendations. EngineeringStructures,24(2),pp.123–138.
4. Kwok, K.C.S., Hitchcock, P.A. and Burton, M.D., 2009. Perceptionofvibrationandoccupantcomfortinwindexcitedtallbuildings.JournalofWindEngineeringand IndustrialAerodynamics,97(7–8),pp.368–380.
5. Smith,B.S.andCoull,A.,1991.TallBuildingStructures: AnalysisandDesign.NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.
6. Simiu, E. and Scanlan, R.H., 2003. Wind Effects on Structures:FundamentalsandApplicationstoDesign. 3rded.NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.
7. Taranath,B.S.,2016.StructuralAnalysisandDesignof TallBuildings:SteelandCompositeConstruction.Boca Raton:CRCPress.
8. Zhang,L.andGu,M.,2013.Wind-inducedresponsesof tallbuildingswithdifferentstructuralsystems.Journal ofWindEngineering,120,pp.45–55.
9. Abu-Zidan,Y.,Mendis,P.,Gunawardena,T.andMohotti, D.,2022.Winddesignoftallbuildings:Thestateofthe art.ElectronicJournalofStructuralEngineering,22(1), pp.53–71.
10. Davenport,A.G.,1967.Gustloadingfactors.Journalof theStructuralDivision,93(3),pp.11–34.
11. Gu,M.andQuan,Y.,2004.Across-windloadsoftypical tall buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and IndustrialAerodynamics,92(13),pp.1147–1165.
12. Huang, G. and Chen, X., 2007. Wind load effects and equivalent static wind loads of tall buildings. EngineeringStructures,29(10),pp.2641–2653.
13. Isyumov,N.,1993.Criteriaforacceptablewind-induced motions of tall buildings. Proceedings of the ASCE StructuresCongress,pp.312–317.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 05 | May 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
14. Kareem,A.,1990.Measurementsandanalysisofwind effects on tall buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering,116(5),pp.1247–1265.
15. Kareem,A.andTamura,Y.,2013.Advancedmodeling techniques in wind engineering. Journal of Wind Engineering,122,pp.1–10.
16. Kim, W., Tamura, Y., Yoshida, A. and Yi, J.H., 2018. Interference effects on wind forces acting on tall buildings.JournalofWindEngineeringandIndustrial Aerodynamics,173,pp.150–165.
17. Li,Y.,Duan,R.B.,Li,Q.S.,Li,Y.G.andLi,C.,2020.Wind pressure characteristics of L-shaped tall buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,203,p.104225.
18. Melbourne,W.H.,1980.Comparisonofmeasurements ontheCAARCstandardtallbuildingmodel.Journalof WindEngineering,6(1),pp.73–88.
19. Mohotti, D., Mendis, P. and Ngo, T., 2014. Simplified design methods for tall buildings under wind loads. EngineeringStructures,78,pp.154–165.
20. Paul,R.andDalui,S.K.,2016.WindeffectsonZ-shaped tall buildings. International Journal of Advanced StructuralEngineering,8(3),pp.319–335.
21. Rahimian, A., Udilovich, K., Shleykov, I., Kelly, D. and Garber,J.,2025.Performance-basedwinddesignoftall buildings.JournalofWindEngineeringandIndustrial Aerodynamics,267,p.106248.
22. Sathe,K.K.,Patil,A.D.andJadhav,V.S.,2024.Windload analysis of tall buildings: A review. International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management,7(1),pp.1–6.
23. Solari,G.,1993.Gustbuffetinganddynamicresponseof structures. Journal of Wind Engineering, 46–47, pp.843–854.
24. Tamura,Y.,2009.Evaluationofwind-inducedresponse ofbuildings.JournalofWindEngineeringandIndustrial Aerodynamics,97(7–8),pp.370–381.
25. Tschanz,T.andDavenport,A.G.,1983.Dynamicwind response of tall buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering,109(5),pp.1045–1061.
26. Wijesooriya, K., Mohotti, D., Lee, C.K. and Mendis, P., 2023.CFDapplicationsinwinddesignoftallbuildings. JournalofBuildingEngineering,74,p.106828.
27. Zhou,Y.,Kareem,A.andGu,M.,2002.Modelingofwind loads on tall buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering,128(6),pp.788–796.
28. Zhou, Y. and Gu, M., 2005. Study on wind-induced torsional responses of tall buildings. Engineering Structures,27(3),pp.429–440.
29. Blocken, B., 2015. Computational fluid dynamics for urbanphysics.BuildingandEnvironment,91,pp.219–245.
30. Kwon,D.K.andKareem,A.,2009.Comparativestudyof wind load effects on tall buildings. Engineering Structures,31(1),pp.222–236.
31. Irwin, P.A., 2009. Wind engineering challenges of tall buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering, 97(7–8), pp.328–334.
32. Dyrbye, C. and Hansen, S.O., 1997. Wind Loads on Structures.Chichester:JohnWiley&Sons.
33. Holmes,J.D.,2018.WindLoadingofStructures.4thed. BocaRaton:CRCPress.