LES of wind-induced pressures and flow structures around tandem buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the effects of upstream building interference on surface pressure distributions and flow behavior around a principal building in a tandem arrangement using Large Eddy Simulation (LES), validated against wind tunnel measurements. Streamwise separations ranging from 1.5 B to 6 B were analyzed to capture transitions between established interference regimes, including reattachment and co-shedding. Particular emphasis is given on evaluating mean, root-mean-square, and peak pressure coefficients, with peak values highlighted due to their relevance in cladding design and extreme wind load assessment. Results show that maximum peak pressures on the windward wall are generally suppressed under interference, while minimum peak pressures are significantly amplified near vertical edges and separation zones. This amplification is especially pronounced for separations below 3 B , where shielding reduces stagnation loads but enhances suction effects. Flow visualizations and turbulence-intensity maps confirm transitions in the interference regime, from wake shielding and attached roof flow to roof-level separation and vortex formation. The findings demonstrate the capability of LES to resolve key flow features and pressure variations in tandem building configurations and emphasize the importance of accounting for extreme suction demands in closely spaced urban environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".