Comparisons of Wind Tunnel and Full-Scale Building Surface Pressures With Emphasis on Peaks

Dalgliesh, W. A.; Templin, J.T.; Cooper, Kevin R.

doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-8367-8.50056-5

Cited by 11 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that the observed building movements and wind tunnel results correlated well once the model data had been adjusted for building frequencies. In 1979, Dalgliesh et al [29] compared the full-scale wind pressure coefficients measured from that 57-storey building with the corresponding model test data. A good agreement was shown where sufficient full-scale data were employed.…”

Section: Dalgliesh's Full-scale/model Test Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Full-Scale/Model Test Comparisons to Validate the Traditional Atmospheric Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Tests: Literature Review and Personal Perspectives

Cheng,

Zhao,

et al. 2024

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For this paper, full-scale/model test comparisons to validate the traditional atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) wind-tunnel simulation technique performed until now by the wind engineering community are systematically reviewed. The engineering background includes some benchmark low-rise buildings specifically established for use in wind engineering research (the Aylesbury experimental buildings, the Texas Tech University experimental building, the Silsoe buildings, etc.), several high-rise buildings in North America and East Asia, long-span bridges, large-span structures, and cooling towers. These structures are of different geometries, are located in different wind environments, and are equipped with various transducers and anemometers. By summarizing the different articles in the literature, it is evident that notable discrepancies between the full-scale measurement and the model test results were observed in most full-scale/model test comparisons, which usually took certain forms: the mean and/or the peak negative pressures at the flow separation regions on buildings were underestimated in the wind tunnel; differences in the root-mean-square (rms) values of the acceleration samples between the full-scale measurements and the force balance model tests were non-negligible; the vertical vortex-induced vibration amplitudes of bridges measured using section models and aero-elastic models were much lower than those observed on the prototypes, etc. Most scholars subjectively inferred that inherent technical issues with the ABL wind tunnel simulation technique could be responsible for the observed full-scale/model test discrepancies, including the Reynolds number effects, the turbulent flow characteristics effects, and the non-stationarity effects. However, based on the authors’ years of experience and after discussion with experienced researchers, it was found that some of the full-scale measurements performed in earlier research were inherently less accurate and deterministic than the wind tunnel experiments they were supposed to validate, which could also be a significant cause of the full-scale/model test discrepancies observed. It is suggested herein that future studies in this field should regard full-scale measurements only as benchmarks, and that future works should focus on synthesizing the results from different schools of physical experiments and formulating universal empirical models of high theoretical significance to properly validate future wind tunnel tests.

show abstract

Section: Dalgliesh's Full-scale/model Test Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%