高层建筑峰值压力系数估算:基于les的Gumbel和XIMIS方法评价

IF 4.2 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Latife Atar, Jack K. Wong, Oya Mercan
{"title":"高层建筑峰值压力系数估算:基于les的Gumbel和XIMIS方法评价","authors":"Latife Atar,&nbsp;Jack K. Wong,&nbsp;Oya Mercan","doi":"10.1016/j.jweia.2025.106161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Accurately estimating peak wind pressures is essential for the safe and cost-effective design of high-rise buildings. This study evaluates LES-based peak pressure coefficient predictions for high-rise buildings, using 1-h equivalent full-scale wind tunnel data from Tokyo Polytechnic University as a reference. The research examines the effects of segment durations, number of segments, total EFS durations, and wall-specific error analysis and prediction uncertainties in LES. The Cook-Mayne conversion standardized shorter segments to a 60-min EFS duration but introduced prediction discrepancies, particularly for negative peak pressures. Findings indicate that longer total durations with moderate segment lengths yield reliable maximum pressure predictions, while shorter segment durations are more effective for minimum pressures. Wall-specific analysis reveals greater uncertainties near the ground on side and leeward walls due to recirculation and separation, and at higher elevations on the windward wall from stagnation effects. The XIMIS method yields peak estimates comparable to the Gumbel method, effectively handles limited data. While LES shows strong potential for capturing peak pressures, its accuracy in Gumbel based analysis is sensitive to segment and total simulation durations. In contrast, XIMIS offers consistent results without need for segmentation, making it particularly valuable when data availability is limited.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54752,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics","volume":"265 ","pages":"Article 106161"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating peak pressure coefficients for high-rise buildings: LES-based evaluation of Gumbel and XIMIS methods\",\"authors\":\"Latife Atar,&nbsp;Jack K. Wong,&nbsp;Oya Mercan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jweia.2025.106161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Accurately estimating peak wind pressures is essential for the safe and cost-effective design of high-rise buildings. This study evaluates LES-based peak pressure coefficient predictions for high-rise buildings, using 1-h equivalent full-scale wind tunnel data from Tokyo Polytechnic University as a reference. The research examines the effects of segment durations, number of segments, total EFS durations, and wall-specific error analysis and prediction uncertainties in LES. The Cook-Mayne conversion standardized shorter segments to a 60-min EFS duration but introduced prediction discrepancies, particularly for negative peak pressures. Findings indicate that longer total durations with moderate segment lengths yield reliable maximum pressure predictions, while shorter segment durations are more effective for minimum pressures. Wall-specific analysis reveals greater uncertainties near the ground on side and leeward walls due to recirculation and separation, and at higher elevations on the windward wall from stagnation effects. The XIMIS method yields peak estimates comparable to the Gumbel method, effectively handles limited data. While LES shows strong potential for capturing peak pressures, its accuracy in Gumbel based analysis is sensitive to segment and total simulation durations. In contrast, XIMIS offers consistent results without need for segmentation, making it particularly valuable when data availability is limited.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics\",\"volume\":\"265 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106161\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167610525001576\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167610525001576","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

准确估计峰值风压对高层建筑的安全、经济设计至关重要。本研究以东京工业大学1小时等效全尺寸风洞数据为参考,评估基于les的高层建筑峰值压力系数预测。该研究考察了段持续时间、段数量、总EFS持续时间、壁特异性误差分析和预测不确定性对LES的影响。Cook-Mayne转换将较短的时间段标准化为60分钟的EFS持续时间,但引入了预测差异,特别是对于负峰值压力。研究结果表明,较长的总持续时间和中等长度的分段可以得到可靠的最大压力预测,而较短的分段持续时间可以得到更有效的最小压力预测。特定墙体的分析表明,由于再循环和分离,在靠近地面的侧面和背风墙壁上,以及在较高海拔的迎风墙壁上,由于停滞效应,存在更大的不确定性。XIMIS方法产生的峰值估计与Gumbel方法相当,有效地处理有限的数据。虽然LES显示出捕获峰值压力的强大潜力,但其在基于Gumbel的分析中的准确性对分段和总模拟持续时间很敏感。相比之下,XIMIS提供一致的结果而不需要分割,这使得它在数据可用性有限时特别有价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Estimating peak pressure coefficients for high-rise buildings: LES-based evaluation of Gumbel and XIMIS methods
Accurately estimating peak wind pressures is essential for the safe and cost-effective design of high-rise buildings. This study evaluates LES-based peak pressure coefficient predictions for high-rise buildings, using 1-h equivalent full-scale wind tunnel data from Tokyo Polytechnic University as a reference. The research examines the effects of segment durations, number of segments, total EFS durations, and wall-specific error analysis and prediction uncertainties in LES. The Cook-Mayne conversion standardized shorter segments to a 60-min EFS duration but introduced prediction discrepancies, particularly for negative peak pressures. Findings indicate that longer total durations with moderate segment lengths yield reliable maximum pressure predictions, while shorter segment durations are more effective for minimum pressures. Wall-specific analysis reveals greater uncertainties near the ground on side and leeward walls due to recirculation and separation, and at higher elevations on the windward wall from stagnation effects. The XIMIS method yields peak estimates comparable to the Gumbel method, effectively handles limited data. While LES shows strong potential for capturing peak pressures, its accuracy in Gumbel based analysis is sensitive to segment and total simulation durations. In contrast, XIMIS offers consistent results without need for segmentation, making it particularly valuable when data availability is limited.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
22.90%
发文量
306
审稿时长
4.4 months
期刊介绍: The objective of the journal is to provide a means for the publication and interchange of information, on an international basis, on all those aspects of wind engineering that are included in the activities of the International Association for Wind Engineering http://www.iawe.org/. These are: social and economic impact of wind effects; wind characteristics and structure, local wind environments, wind loads and structural response, diffusion, pollutant dispersion and matter transport, wind effects on building heat loss and ventilation, wind effects on transport systems, aerodynamic aspects of wind energy generation, and codification of wind effects. Papers on these subjects describing full-scale measurements, wind-tunnel simulation studies, computational or theoretical methods are published, as well as papers dealing with the development of techniques and apparatus for wind engineering experiments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信