Wind Loads in Low-Rise Buildings with Parapet: A Systematic Review
GUILHERME S. TEIXEIRA, MARCO D. DE CAMPOS
Institute of Exact and Earth Sciences
Federal University of Mato Grosso,
Av. Valdon Varjão, 6390, Barra do Garças, 78605-091, Mato Grosso
BRAZIL
Abstract: A relevant analysis for the design of buildings is wind-induced loading. Although this has led to
numerous studies, there have been relatively few investigations on the effects of parapets on wind loads. This
systematic review addressed quantitative and qualitative behavior of wind loads in buildings with parapets in
the Web of Science, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS, and Compendex databases. Using alternative methods such as
citation searches and websites were selected 6 research articles were and added 6 papers. The results treat the
influence of parapets on the behavior of the wind on roofs of low-rise buildings, especially wind loads, and its
correlation with the building's geometric characteristics and parapets. The results identified pressure increases
on roofs for low parapets (h<1.0 m); however, the dates vary according to the h/H ratio. Also, in general, the
higher the parapets, the highest the reduction in the intensities of the pressure coefficients. Still, the porous and
cantilevered parapets are more efficient and economically viable as a device to mitigate wind loads when
compared to solid parapets in low buildings. Finally, for an open canopy, the height of the parapet is the main
parameter, although the length of the building is also relevant.
Key-Words: Wind action, systematic review, low-rise buildings, parapet.
Received: May 19, 2022. Revised: October 22, 2022. Accepted: November 24, 2022. Published: December 31, 2022.
1 Introduction
A parapet, by definition, is a low protective wall
that rises above a roof, balcony, or terrace, [1]. The
intensity of wind load incident on buildings varies
based on the profile of each building element and
orientation. These factors considerably alter the
pressure differences at various points along the
building exterior.
While parapets add aesthetic features to a
building, creating architectural elements, hiding
rooftop equipment, and serving other functions, they
can still act as an aerodynamic performance
mitigation device, among other factors as well as the
shape and size of the roof.
Studies have shown that parapets offer relief for
roof assemblies in resisting wind uplift.
Nevertheless, parapets themselves experience stress
due to wind loads. There is no consensus about their
effectiveness since the reduction in the magnitude of
wind pressures is directly related to height, the wind
direction angle, and the building's shape, among
other factors, [2], [3].
Generally, solid parapets of varied sizes can alter
wind pressures on large roofs because they can
modify the flow pattern around buildings and
change the mean and peak pressures. Still, the mean
pressure pattern shows a reduction in the length of
the separation bubble due to the parapet, [4], [5].
Initially, parapets were composed of a single,
monolithic element beneath the coping, serving the
dual function of structural support and weather-
resistive barrier. Nowadays, they tend to have a
structural core that offers more design options and
integrates thermal and moisture control layers (Fig.
1). Subject to wind and weather on both the
outboard and inboard sides, parapets are especially
vulnerable to rain, wind, snow, and thermal forces.
Notably, wind loads acting on the perpendicular
face generate an overturning moment or the force
attempting to topple the parapet, [6].
2 Methodology
The recommendations of the PRISMA methodology,
[7] served as the basis for this systematic review
elaboration. The search theme in the literature was
the influence of parapets on wind loads on low-rise
building roofs. The criteria used to define and
conduct this review will be detailed below.
Eligibility criteria
Wind loads on low-rise building roofs were
considered in the selection of articles.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.122
Guilherme S. Teixeira, Marco D. De Campos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1296
Volume 18, 2022
Fig. 1: Basic parapets components [6].
Papers that analyzed the action of the wind on the
parapets themselves, high-rise building roofs, or that
did not mention the word “parapet(s)” in the
abstract or title are outside the scope of this review.
We also considered only research articles in English
and open access. No time frame or filter was
employed. The last search was on December 13,
2022.
Research bases
A query was performed on the Portal de Periódicos
Capes, the virtual library for higher education and
research institutions in Brazil – to assess the bases
available for searching for articles. Hence, the
following were selected: Web of Science,
ScienceDirect (Elsevier), SCOPUS (Elsevier) and
Compendex (Engineering Village – Elsevier).
Search strategy
Initially, a search was carried out on the Google
Scholar website for an overview of the approach to
the subject in the literature and, later, the search
outline. From this were defined the keywords and
Booleans: parapet* AND “wind load*” OR “low-
rise building*”.
Selection of studies
Data screening was conducted using Rayyan
Intelligent Systematic Review software - indicated as
the more appropriate tool, [8] - and consisted of
duplicate disposal, eligibility, and elimination of
studies classified as inappropriate. After eliminating
duplicates and articles that did not contain the word
“parapet(s)” in their title or abstract, the reading of
the titles and abstracts of the remaining papers
began. After applying the filters, defined articles out
of scope. Then a careful reading of the works
included in the review. Finally, categorized the
selected works by the type of parapets, the tool used
(experimental or numerical), and the type of
building (closed walls or open canopy).
3 Results and Discussions
With search strategy 735 papers were selected. Then,
using alternative methods such as citation search
and websites, 6 papers were added. Figure 2
presents the flowchart of the selection process of
materials for this systematic review.
Next, we’ll cover the influence of parapets on the
behavior of the wind on roofs of low buildings,
especially wind loads and its correlation with the
geometric characteristics of buildings and parapets.
However, analytical data will not receive much
attention, since their comparison would require
multiple experiments due to the possible
combinations of buildings and parapets and
variations in geometry, porosity, and influence of
the surroundings, among others, [9]. Table 1 shows
the grouping of papers.
3.1 Full-scale Field Experiment
Full-scale field experiments are those conducted
outside the laboratory, with real-world conditions,
[22]. A field survey of Wind Engineering consists of
the actual model instrumentation (usually existing
before the study) with devices for measuring wind
pressure and speed and an adequate data acquisition
system, [23]. The method may have some
advantages, such as anchoring and validation for
wind tunnel calibration and the decreasing scale
effects compared to tests on reduced models
[24],[25].
On the other hand, due to the high cost and time
compared to other methods, like this a difficulty in
controlling boundary conditions, tests like this are
rare, [2]. As a reflection of this, this sample only has
a single work carried out by [12] instrumented a
small building with eaves in Canada (Table 1).
Despite the limitations of observing some wind
incidence directions and obtaining data from some
pressure taps after installing the parapets, the results
showed that the higher the parapets, the highest the
reduction in roof suction. This statement is
consensus in the Wind Engineering community
according on subsequent works of this review, [21];
however, these results are valid for low parapets
(h<1.0 m). Compared to no parapets, a 30-35%
reduction for a 0.25 m parapet was observed and
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.122
Guilherme S. Teixeira, Marco D. De Campos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1297
Volume 18, 2022
another 20-25% for a 0.50 m parapet. This result
goes in the opposite direction concerning the other
studies that we will see, which indicate an increase
in wind loads for low parapets, [10], [21]. In [12],
the authors concluded that the increase in roof
corner suctions may be some dependence on the
parapet height in relation to the building
dimensions.
Fig. 2: Material selection flowchart for the systematic review.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.122
Guilherme S. Teixeira, Marco D. De Campos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1298
Volume 18, 2022
Table 1. Main parameters of the full-scale field experiments.
Parapet type
Tool
employed
Building
dimensions
(L x W x H, in
meters)1
Parapet heights
(in meters)
References
Solid continuous
perimetric
wind tunnel
35.50 x 23.50 x
10.00
0.00; 0.75; 1.50; 2.25;
3.00
[10]
wind tunnel
36.60 x 18.30 x
6.10
0.55; 1.00; 1.10; 1.45;
2.00
[11]
wind tunnel
3.70 x 2.60 x 3.30
(roof: 4.0 0x 3.20)
0.00; 0.05; 0.10; 0.15;
0.20; 0.25; 0.50
[12]2
wind tunnel
7.50 x 7.50 x 3.60
0.91; 1.20; 1.22; 1.52;
1.83
[13]
CFD
7.50 x 7.50 x 3.60;
12.20 x 7.60 x 3.60;
15.20 x 7.60 x 3.60
0.91; 1.20; 1.22; 1.52;
1.83
[13]
wind tunnel
13.37 x 8.91 x 9.14
0;…; 2.06
[14]
CFD
30 x 30 x 15
1.00
[15]
wind tunnel
32 x 32 x 16
0.00; 0.80; 1.60; 2.40
[16]
wind tunnel
49.68 x 39.62 x
6.55
0.91
[17]
wind tunnel
0.20 x 0.20 x 0.10;
0.40 x 0.20 x 0.10
0.00; 0.005; 0.01; 0.02
[18]2
wind tunnel
61 x 61 x 12
0.0; 0.50; 0.75; 1.50
[21]
Porous continuous
perimetric
wind tunnel
32 x 32 x 16
0.00; 0.80; 1.60; 2.40
[16]
CFD
30 x 30 x 15
1.00
[15]
Cantilevered continuous
wind tunnel
32 x 32 x 16
0.00; 0.80; 1.60; 2.40
[16]
wind tunnel
0.48 x 0.48 x 0.12
0.005
[19]²
Discontinuous porous
parapet
wind tunnel
19.05 x 12.20 x
3.66
0.128
[20]
Discontinuous on the
corner
wind tunnel
61 x 61 x 12
0; 0.50; 0.75; 1.50
[21]
1 L is the length, W the width, and H the height of the building.
2 Reduced scale model dimensions.
3.2 Wind Tunnel Experiment
"Measuring the wind effects on a structure is
difficult because this process is highly sophisticated
due to the random and spatiotemporally variable
nature of the wind" [26]. For this, wind tunnel tests
have been widely and satisfactorily applied to
evaluate wind loads on structures [27]. Wind tunnels
are installations capable of reproducing, to some
extent, wind flow on a reduced scale.
Several systems are employed to generate velocity,
turbulence, and terrain roughness profiles and, in
general, supply the limitations of full-scale field
experiments [28].
It is worth highlighting some of the advantages
of this method. They are accuracy, independent
control of the variables, efficiency, and simplicity of
operation [29,30]. On the other hand, one of the
disadvantages is the effect of the Reynolds number
associated with atmospheric turbulence [31]. The
different types of wind tunnels are highly
standardized, such as the boundary layer wind
tunnel and open-jet tunnel, and present a significant
number of results within this review (see Table 1).
3.3 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
Even though wind tunnels constitute an alternative
in wind-induced experiments, their limitations are
questionable, such as the high cost of operation and
the divergence of results for different tunnels using
the same methodology, [32]. With the advancement
of technology, computer power, and data storage
and acquisition, Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) techniques have gained space in studies of
wind actions in buildings, [33]. CFD consists of
solving fluid flow equations through computer
codes, [34]. Some highlights of the advantage of this
methodology are the detailed processing reports, the
low instrumentation - only computers, depending on
the case - and the ease of controlling boundary
conditions. On the other hand, the simulation of
complex geometries is still a challenge, and the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.122
Guilherme S. Teixeira, Marco D. De Campos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1299
Volume 18, 2022
accuracy of the results is constantly questioned and
submitted to several validations [35,36]. In this
review, although no filter was applied and,
consequently, several studies using CFD were
expected, only [13] and [15] were among the results
(see Table 1).
3.4 Low-rise Building with Closed Wall
Low-rise buildings, by definition, are those in which
the lateral dimensions are predominant or equivalent
to the height, that is, L~W~H, L~W>H, or L>W>H,
[37]. Nowadays, most institutional, commercial, and
industrial buildings have parapets, [2], whether
solid, porous, continuous, or not, or even billboards
that create obstructions similar to parapets. For
certain regions, this practice has become
increasingly recurrent for residential buildings. It is
necessary to study the behavior of loads on their
roofs due the scope and vulnerability of these
structures. These have more critical suction on their
corners. Also, how different parapet configurations
can reduce the effect of conical vortices, also known
as delta wing vortices, [16], [31], [38].
Since solid continuous perimetric is the most
common type of parapet, it appears more frequently
in the results analyzed in this work. Whiteman et
al. [14] optimizing the mitigation of the wind action
in the preservation of the aesthetics of the tested
buildings, concluded, by varying the heights of the
parapet (h), that height of 0.90 m is ideal (in a ratio
h/H = 0.10, H being the height of the model).
Similarly, [16] determined the “optimal shape” by
varying porosity settings. He observed that solid and
continuous parapets were less efficient than porous
ones at an h/H ratio <0.05 to decreasing negative
pressure peaks on roofs.
Aly et al., [17], showed in a large industrial
building that different parapet heights are more
effective depending on the wind direction. Despite
obtaining significant reductions (on the order of
50%) at the roof corners for some directions, the
height referring to 14% H was the most effective in
reducing mean and peak pressures across the roof
surface for different wind incidences ( up to 40% in
the roof corner). Blessmann, [18], evaluated how the
different h/H ratios, varying the flow turbulence,
interfere with the pressure and force coefficients on
roofs. He found significant differences for the first
and a small effect for the second.
According to the previous section, a range of
parapets - partial, porous, discontinuous, one-side,
and variable height - have been tested to mitigate
the intensity of pressures on low-rise building roofs
[17] (Fig. 3). Also, the study in [16] observed that
cantilevered parapets, at a ratio of about h/H<0.03,
reduce negative pressure coefficients on flat roofs.
In addition, they performed better than solid and
continuous parapets. In the h/H ratio, the space
created between the roof and the parapet dispersed
the conical vortices, although, above that, the
parapet effect became ineffective. In contrast,
different arched roofs, [19], showed that the
efficiency of cantilevered parapets does not depend
on curvature in reducing wind loads. The authors
attribute this effect to the reduction of delta wing
vortices due to the flat jet injected into the roof
surface.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Fig. 3: Various aerodynamic mitigation features for reducing wind loads on the roofs of low-rise buildings [17]:
(a) porous parapet, (b) solid parapet, (c) discontinuous parapet, (d) partial parapet, (e) parametric spoiler, and
(f) aerodynamic edge.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.122
Guilherme S. Teixeira, Marco D. De Campos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1300
Volume 18, 2022
Now, [20], for a large-scale model, obtained
economically viable results for discontinuous and
porous parapets positioned in the corners and ridge
regions compared to a continuous and solid one. It
demonstrated a 45% reduction in peak pressure
coefficients at the corner roof (similar to that of [17]
with solid parapets, for example). Likewise, the
authors in [21] observed an increase in peak
pressure coefficients at low heights h and a decrease
with increasing h (as well as in continuous
parapets). Using continuous and porous parapets,
the study in [15] obtained similar results. For the
mean pressure coefficients, the parapets with
openings showed a negligible variation in these
coefficients. Even so, both cases proved to be more
efficient against wind action than the continuous
parapets in the corners of the roofs.
3.5 Low-rise Building with Open Canopy
Unlike buildings with closed walls, open-canopy
buildings have a low aspect ratio under-roof
structure and only a few rows of supporting columns
and beams, and are commonly used in gas stations,
[13] (Fig. 4).
Consequently, they become very vulnerable to
wind actions. In terms of mitigating wind loads
depending on the parapets, research indicates that
the height h of the parapets is the most relevant
parameter, [13], [17]. Also, the study [13] based in
experiments in wind tunnels and CFD, observed that
the diagonal directions (30º) were more severe than
the orthogonal ones (0º) (as well as in low-rise
buildings with closed walls). Also, the longer the
building, the more intense the net pressure
coefficients. As for the cost-benefit ratio, the
authors stated that CFD proved to be the most viable
alternative to study the parameters that action of the
wind influence.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4: Building with (a) closed walls and (b) open
canopy.
4 Conclusions
This systematic review investigated the influence of
parapets on wind loads on low-rise buildings. The
similarities and differences between the works were
summarized as follows:
- For low parapets (h<1.0 m), pressure increases
are identified on roofs and have been a consensus in
the Wind Engineering community. However, the
result varies according to the h/H ratio;
- In general, the higher the parapets, the higher
the reduction in the intensities of the pressure
coefficients. Despite this, the “optimal height” needs
to be investigated for each h/H ratio;
- Porous parapets and cantilevered parapets are
more efficient and economically viable as a device
to mitigate wind loads when compared to solid
parapets in low buildings;
- For an open canopy, the height of the parapet is
the main parameter, although the length of the
building is also relevant.
Other works may study the turbulence in these
flows due to the various parapet configurations.
Also, the analysis of the combinations of elements
of parapets is possible, such as the partial parapet,
the aerodynamic edge, the one side, the increased
height at the corners, and the different thicknesses.
Finally, the investigation of different configurations
of buildings with canopy, since in this systematic
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.122
Guilherme S. Teixeira, Marco D. De Campos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1301
Volume 18, 2022
review, only one reference in the literature was
reported.
References:
[1] F. D. K. Ching, Architecture: form, space &
order, 3th ed., Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons,
2007
[2] G. A. Kopp, D. Surry and C. Mans, Wind
effects of parapets on low buildings: part 1.
basic aerodynamics and local loads, Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol. 93, No. 11, 2005, pp.
817–841.
[3] C. Mans, G.A. Kopp and D. Surry, Wind
effects of parapets on low buildings: part 3.
parapet loads, Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 93, No. 11,
2005, pp. 857–872.
[4] P. Huang, X. Peng and M. Gu, Wind tunnel
study on effects of various parapets on wind
load of a flat-roofed low-rise building,
Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 20,
No. 12, 2017, pp. 1907–1919.
[5] W. Suaris and P. Irwin, Effect of roof-edge
parapets on mitigating extreme roof suctions,
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol. 98, No. 10-11, 2010, pp.
483–491.
[6] J. Kuriyama and Eric Au, design guide for
parapets: safety, continuity, and the building
code, Journal of Architectural Technology,
Vol. 37, No. 4, 2020, pp. 1-8.
[7] M. J. Page et al., The PRISMA 2020
statement: an updated guideline for reporting
systematic reviews, Systematic Reviews, Vol.
10, No. 89, 2021, pp. 1-11.
[8] R. Machado et al., Um estudo das ferramentas
de suporte ao gerenciamento de revisões
sistemáticas da literatura. In: Anais do 9º
Salão Internacional de Ensino, Pesquisa e
Extensão da UNIPAMPA, Vol. 9, No. 2,
2017, pp. 1-7 (in Portuguese).
[9] T. Stathopoulos and A. Baskaran, Turbulent
wind loading on roofs with parapet
configurations, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 29, 1988, pp. 570–578.
[10] V. T. Trung, Y. Tamura and A. Yoshida,
Study on wind loading on porous roof cover
sheets on a low-rise building: effects of
parapet height and underneath volume, In:
Americas Conference on Wind Engineering,
2009, pp. 1-12.
[11] A. M. Aly, N. F. Yousef, High Reynolds
number aerodynamic testing of a roof with
parapet, Engineering Structures, Vol. 234,
2021, 1120062021.
[12] T. Stathopoulos, R. Marathe and H. Wu,
Mean wind pressures on flat roof corners
affected by parapets: field and wind tunnel
studies, Engineering Structures, Vol. 21, No.
7, 1999, p. 629–638.
[13] A. Poitevin, B. Natalini and L. A. Godoy,
Pressures on open canopy structures with
parapets under wind loading, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 56, 2013, 850–867.
[14] M. L. Whiteman, P. L. Fernández-Cabán, B.
M. Phillips, F. J. Masters, J. A. Bridge and J.
R. Davis, Multi-objective optimal design of a
building envelope and structural system using
cyber-physical modeling in a wind tunnel,
Frontiers in Built Environment, Vol. 4, No.
13, 2018, pp. 1-17.
[15] Y. Qiu , B. San and Y. Zhao, Numerical
simulation and optimization of wind effects of
porous parapets on low-rise buildings with flat
roofs, Advances in Civil Engineering, Vol.
2019, No. 11, 2019, pp. 1-11.
[16] S. Pindado and J. Meseguer, Wind tunnel
study on the influence of different parapets on
the roof pressure distribution of low-rise
buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 91, 2003, pp.
1133–1139.
[17] A. M. Aly, M. Thomas and H. Gol-Zaroudi,
Experimental investigation of the
aerodynamics of a large industrial building
with parapet, Advances in Aerodynamics, Vol.
3, No. 26, 2021, pp. 1-22.
[18] J. Blessmann, Wind pressures on roofs with
negative pitch, Journal of Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol. 10, 1982, p. 213-230.
[19] S. Franchini, S. Pindado, J. Meseguer and A.
Sanz-Andrés, A parametric, experimental
analysis of conical vortices on curved roofs of
low-rise buildings, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
Vol. 93, 2005, pp. 639–650.
[20] Z. Azzi, F. Habte, A. Elawady, A. G.
Chowdhury and M. Moravej, Aerodynamic
mitigation of wind uplift on low-rise building
roof using large-scale testing, Frontiers in
Built Environment, Vol. 5, No. 149, 2020, pp.
1-17.
[21] A. Baskaran and T. Stathopoulos, Roof corner
mind loads and parapet configurations,
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol. 29, 1988, pp. 79-88.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.122
Guilherme S. Teixeira, Marco D. De Campos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1302
Volume 18, 2022
[22] R. McDermott, Experimental methods in
Political Science, Annual Review of Political
Science, Vol. 5, 2002, pp. 31–61.
[23] P. Huang, X. Wang and M. Gu, Field
Experiments for Wind Loads on a Low-Rise
Building with Adjustable Pitch, International
Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, Vol.
8, No. 8(9), 2012, doi:10.1155/2012/451879.
[24] S. K. Chakrabarti, Physical Modelling of
Offshore Structures, In: S. K. Chakrabarti
(Ed.), Handbook of Offshore Engineering,
Elsevier, 2005, Chap. 13, pp. 1001-1054.
[25] H. J. Leutheusser, Influence of architectural
features on the static wind loading of
buildings, In: Proceedings of Technical
Meeting Concerning Wind Loads on Buildings
and Structures: Held at National Bureau of
Standards, 1969, Gaithersburg, Building
Science Series 30, 1969, pp. 73-86.
[26] Zhang, Y., Cardiff, P. and Keenahan, J, Wind-
induced phenomena in long-span cable-
supported bridges: a comparative review of
wind tunnel tests and computational fluid
dynamics modelling, Applied Sciences, Vol.
11, No.1642, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041642.
[27] T.C.E. Ho, D. Surry and D. Morrish,
NIST/TTU Cooperative Agreement –
Windstorm Mitigation Initiative: Wind Tunnel
Experiments on Generic Low Buildings,
London: Univ. of Western Ontario, 2003.
[28] K. Espinoza, D. L. Valera, J. A. Torres, A.
Lopez and F. D. Molina-Aiz. An auto-tuning
PI control system for an open-circuit low-
speed wind tunnel designed for greenhouse
technology. Sensors (Basel), 2015; Vol. 15,
No. 8, 2015, pp. 19723–19749.
[29] C. Wang, B. Nan, T. Wang, Y. Bai and Y. Li,
Wind pressure acting on greenhouses: a
review, International Journal of Agricultural
and Biological Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 2,
2021, pp. 1-8.
[30] R. DeLoach, Applications of modern
experiment design to wind tunnel testing at
NASA Langley Research Center. In: 36th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit, 1998, Reno. American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1999, pp. 1-14.
[31] H. W. Tieleman, Wind tunnel simulation of
wind loading on low-rise structures: a review.
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol. 91, 2003, pp. 1627–1649.
[32] H. Koss, Einfluß der Simulation des
natürlichen Windes auf die Prognose des
Überlastrisikos von Hallentragwerken, Ruhr-
Universität Bochum, 2000 (in German).
[33] M. S. Thordal, J. C. Bennetsen and H. H. H.
Koss, Review for practical application of CFD
for the determination of wind load on high-
rise buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 186, 2019,
pp. 155-168.
[34] Y. A. Çengel and J. M. Cimbala, Fluid
Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications,
4 Ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2018.
[35] H. Bendjebbas, A. Abdellah-ElHadj and M.
Abbas. Full-scale, wind tunnel and CFD
analysis methods of wind loads on heliostats:
a review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 54, 2016, pp. 452-472.
[36] E. E. Khalil, CFD History and Applications,
CFD Letters, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2012, pp. 43-46.
[37] J. Revuz, D. M. Hargreaves and J.S. Owen,
On the domain size for the steady-state CFD
modelling of a tall building, Wind and
Structures, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2012, pp. 313-329.
[38] G. A. Kopp, C. Mans and David Surry, Wind
effects of parapets on low buildings: Part 4.
Mitigation of corner loads with alternative
geometries, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 93, 2005, pp.
873–888.
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
Guilherme Teixeira was responsible for the
methodology and writing the results. Marco Campos
carried out the conceptualization, review, and
editing.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.122
Guilherme S. Teixeira, Marco D. De Campos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1303
Volume 18, 2022