Architectural form can be a significant factor influencing the performance of a tall building under across-wind excitation. When wind tunnel testing of a defined architectural form reveals undesirable behavior, it must be mitigated through engineering modifications such as the addition of structural material or supplementary damping devices. Alternatively, informed design of architectural forms enables a tall building’s shape to be modified in a way that has the potential to significantly reduce its across-wind response. Introducing openings in the form of vented floors was explored to reduce across-wind excitation of a prismatic square building. Single and double-vented aerodynamic treatments were applied at various locations along the height of prismatic square benchmark buildings of 7:1, 8.5:1, and 10:1 slenderness. In total, 36 distinct architectural forms were tested at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill’s experimental boundary layer wind tunnel facility to determine the effectiveness of the vents. A ‘zone of maximum influence’ was identified at approximately 60%–80% of the height of prismatic square buildings. ‘Optimal’ locations for single- and double-vents were determined within this influence zone. Full-scale peak moment and acceleration responses were estimated and compared to evaluate the dependence of venting treatment effectiveness on incident wind speed and flow turbulence.

建筑形式可能是影响高层建筑在横风激励下性能的重要因素。当定义的建筑形式的风洞测试显示不良行为时，必须通过工程修改（例如添加结构材料或辅助阻尼装置）来缓解。另外，知情的建筑形式设计可以使高层建筑的形状得到修改，从而有可能显着降低其跨风响应。探索了通风地板形式的开口，以减少棱柱形方形建筑的横风激励。沿棱柱形方形基准建筑物的高度分别沿细长的7：1、8.5：1和10：1的高度，在各个位置进行了单通气和双通气动力处理。总共，在Skidmore，Owings＆Merrill的实验性边界层风洞设施中测试了36种不同的建筑形式，以确定通风口的有效性。在棱柱形方形建筑物的高度的大约60％–80％处确定了“最大影响区”。在此影响范围内确定了单排气口和双排气口的“最佳”位置。估计并比较了满量程的峰值力矩和加速度响应，以评估通风处理效果对入射风速和湍流的依赖性。在此影响范围内确定了单排气口和双排气口的“最佳”位置。估计并比较了满量程的峰值力矩和加速度响应，以评估通风处理效果对入射风速和湍流的依赖性。在此影响范围内确定了单排气口和双排气口的“最佳”位置。估计并比较了满量程的峰值力矩和加速度响应，以评估通风处理效果对入射风速和湍流的依赖性。