Received: 22 December 2017 Revised: 6 March 2018 Accepted: 21 April 2018

DOI: 10.1002/tal.1503

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Wind effect of a twin‐tower super high‐rise building with weak

connection
Lele Zhang | Wentao Cheng | Zhuangning Xie

State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building

Science, South China University of
Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China
Correspondence
Zhuangning Xie, State Key Laboratory of
Subtropical Building Science, South China
University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641,
China.
Email: znxie@scut.edu.cn
Funding information
National Natural Science Foundation of China,
Grant/Award Number: 51278204
Summary
An analysis and estimation method of multibalance synchronous test is established to
study the wind effect of a complex super high‐rise building with weak connection.
First, the frequency domain method is applied to deduce the calculation process of
the wind effect of the multitower structure on the basis of the high frequency force
balance (HFFB) technique. Then, the synchronous force test of HFFB is conducted
on a twin‐tower super high‐rise building connected by a bridge. The wind‐induced
response and loads and the interference effect between the two towers are analyzed
based on the wind tunnel test data. The displacement correlation between the towers
and the relative displacement of the multitower structure are investigated. Results
show that the maximum and minimum relative displacements in the along‐bridge
direction are 0.26 m in the along‐wind direction and −0.26 m in the crosswind direc-
tion, respectively. The channeling effect formed by the surrounding buildings is the
main cause of the maximum cross‐bridge displacement. The influence of the correla-
tion between the two towers can be ignored for the along‐bridge relative displace-
ment. The results of the HFFB and high‐frequency pressure integral test agree with
each other, thereby indicating the reliability and effectiveness of the proposed
method.

KEY W ORDS

correlation analysis, high frequency force balance (HFFB), relative displacement, twin tower super
high‐rise building, weak connection, wind tunnel test

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N

Load under strong wind is the dominant load for design due to the flexible property of super high‐rise buildings. With the development of science
and technology and the changes of social needs, super high‐rise buildings are becoming increasingly diversified, and multitower structures con-
tinue to emerge. Moreover, the goal of architectural design has evolved from a single function to an integrated multipurpose function. The require-
ments of multifunction and architectural esthetics will lead to the complexity of structural types and forms. The twin‐tower super high‐rise
building studied in this paper is a comprehensive multipurpose building. The multitower structure has a complex shape and interdependent towers,
and mutual aerodynamic interference exists, thereby leading to complicated analysis of force and wind effect. Presently, the wind tunnel test is
still the main research method for this type of high‐rise building.
Song et al.[1] studied the interbuilding and intrabuilding aerodynamic correlations of “Π” type linked buildings with strong connection at the
top by using high‐frequency pressure integration (HFPI) test on the rigid model. Furthermore, the wind‐induced response of linked buildings
was discussed. Lo et al.[2] conducted both high frequency force balance (HFFB) and aeroelastic vibration tests for two identical square prism
models of buildings to investigate the downstream interference effects. The CFD method was used to simulate vortex motion. Hui et al.[3] studied
the interference effects for local peak pressures between two rectangular‐section high‐rise buildings through simultaneous pressure measurement

Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2018;e1503. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 16
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1503
2 of 16 ZHANG ET AL.

tests. Two building arrangements, namely, parallel and perpendicular, were considered. Interference factors for largest positive and smallest neg-
ative peak pressures were presented and discussed. Yu et al.[4] conducted HFPI tests to study the distribution and correlation of the envelope
interference factor of the base torsional responses for the principal building and the mechanism and formation conditions of vortex‐excited res-
onance. Campbell et al.[5] studied the dynamic properties and wind‐induced response of two high‐rise buildings in Hong Kong during a typhoon
through full‐scale measurement. Xie and Gu[6] studied the mean interference effects among three tall buildings through a series of wind tunnel
tests and discussed the shielding and channeling effects. Ming et al.[7] conducted wind tunnel experiments of a group‐tower composed of five
separate subtowers with different diameters and heights. Rigid sectional models were used to study the mean and fluctuating wind pressure, wind
force distributions, and mean base shear and moment coefficients. However, the dynamic response of the group tower structure was not involved.
Research on the multitower structure in the existing literature mainly focused on the interference effect,[8] shielding effect,[9] and wind envi-
ronment[10] in two‐tower, three‐tower, and multitower structures. However, few studies have been conducted on the wind effect of multitower
structures with weak connection. The so‐called weak connection refers to the hinge joint or sliding connection at junctions. The stiffness of the
connection has no discernible effect on the structural dynamic property.
For super high‐rise buildings with connection, HFPI is the preferred method when the connection is strong. However, obtaining the complete
aerodynamic property of the building is difficult for pressure measurement particularly when the building façade is complex or a complex tower
crown exists. These problems may constrain the availability of the HFPI method. When a weak connection is used, the HFFB technology can still
be used to measure the base moment and torque of each tower to estimate the wind‐induced response and wind load of the structure. To obtain
the relative displacement of the connection under strong wind, the signal must be sampled simultaneously. For each additional tower, only one
HFFB needs to be added for the HFFB test, whereas a large number of additional pressure taps are required for the HFPI test. Experimental equip-
ment for pressure measurement may hardly satisfy the required number of pressure taps.
On the basis of the basic principle of HFFB,[11,12] this paper deduces the relative displacement formula of the specified position of two sec-
tions at any height of the two towers and writes the corresponding program. Then, the synchronous force test of HFFB is carried out on a certain
“H”‐type twin‐tower structure. On the basis of the wind tunnel test data, the displacements of the independent tower and bridge are analyzed and
calculated under strong wind. Valuable conclusions are summarized from different aspects.

2 | METHODOLOGY

2.1 | Basic equation

The HFFB technology is based on modal analysis and is suitable for a structure with a fundamental mode that is dominant and approximately lin-
ear. The twin‐tower super high‐rise building studied in this paper is weakly connected. Thus, we can consider that the movements of the two
towers are independent and the coupling between them can be ignored.
The two towers of the twin‐tower structure with bridge connection are called tower A and tower B, respectively. The equation of motion of
the system is

my€ ðtÞ þ Dy_ ðtÞ þ KyðtÞ ¼ pðtÞ (1)

where m, D, and K are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrix of the system, respectively, m = diag ([mA mB]); D ¼ diagð½ DA DB Þ;
K ¼ diagð½ KA KB Þ; y(t), y_ ðtÞ, and y€ ðtÞ are the response of displacement, velocity, and acceleration, respectively; yðtÞ ¼ ½ yA ðtÞ yB ðtÞ T ;
yi ðtÞ ¼ ½ ui ðtÞ v i ðtÞ φi ðtÞ T contains two lateral displacements and one angular displacement, and the subscript i represents towers A and B; t

T
is the time series; and p(t) represents the wind load acting on the structure, pi ðtÞ ¼ pix ðtÞ piy ðtÞ piφ ðtÞ .
The displacement can be expressed by the modal decomposition method as

yðtÞ ¼ ΦqðtÞ (2)

where Φ is the mode shape of the system, Φ ¼ diagð½ ΦA ΦB Þ, where the first three modes are the fundamental mode of tower A, and the last three
modes are the fundamental mode of tower B; q(t) is the modal response of the twin‐tower system. Assuming that the fundamental mode of each tower
is linearly distributed along the height, the structural mode shape can be written as the Kronecker product of the modal participation factor matrix C

2 3
zi zi zi
C Ci2x Ci3x
6 i1x Hi Hi Hi 7
6 7
zi 6 zi zi zi 7
Φi ¼ Ci ⊗ ¼ 6 Ci1y Ci2y Ci3y 7 (3)
Hi 6
6 Hi Hi Hi 77
4 zi zi zi 5
Ci1φ Ci2φ Ci3φ
Hi Hi Hi

where z is the story height vector, z ¼ ½ z1 z2 ⋯ zn T , the subscript n is the number of floors; Hi is the structural height; and C is the modal
participation factor matrix, which is written as
ZHANG ET AL. 3 of 16

2 3
Ci1x Ci2x Ci3x
6 7
Ci ¼ 4 Ci1y Ci2y Ci3y 5 (4)
Ci1φ Ci2φ Ci3φ

where each element Cijk is derived from the mode shape obtained by modal analysis, which follows the principle that the proportion of each component
does not change in the generalized mass; and j is the order of mode shape, which takes j = 1, 2, 3 based on the independent tower and j = 1–6 based on
the twin‐tower system. The subscript k is the load direction, including x‐, y‐, or torsional direction.
The differential equation of motion in modal coordinates is

€ ðtÞ þ Dp q_ ðtÞ þ ΛqðtÞ ¼ m−1

q p fðtÞ (5)

where q€ ðtÞ, q_ ðtÞ, and q(t) are modal acceleration, modal velocity, and modal displacement, respectively; Λ is the diagonal array of natural circular


frequencies, Λ ¼ diag ω21 ⋯ ω26 , ωj is the natural undamped circular frequencies for the jth mode; Dp is the modal damping ratio matrix,
Dp ¼ diagð½ 2ω1 ζ 1 ⋯ 2ω6 ζ 6 Þ, ζj is the modal damping for the jth mode; mp is the modal mass matrix, mp = ΦTmΦ; f(t) is the generalized
aerodynamic load; and fðtÞ ¼ ½ fA ðtÞ fB ðtÞ T can be expressed by the base moment and base torque measured by the HFFB test as
8 9
8 9 >
> 1 >
>
pix ðzi ; tÞ > >
> M iy ðt Þ >
>
 T >
< = >
< Hi >
=
T zi
fi ðtÞ ¼ Φi pi ðtÞ ¼ Ci ⊗ piy ðzi ; tÞ ¼ CTi 1 (6)
Hi > : >
; >
> M ðtÞ >
piφ ðzi ; tÞ > Hi ix >
> >
>
>
: >
;
Miφ ðtÞ

where Mix(t) and Miy(t) are the base aerodynamic moments around the y‐ and x‐axis, respectively. Miφ(t) is the base aerodynamic torque and is
written as

zTi
Miφ ðtÞ ¼ p ðzi ; tÞ (7)
Hi iφ

Miφ(t) is not the same as the sum of the aerodynamic torque Miz(t) of the various floors measured by the HFFB test.

Miz ðtÞ ¼ ∑piφ ðzi ; tÞ (8)

Thus, directly replacing the generalized torque with the measured base aerodynamic torque is unreasonable. On the basis of the statistical
results of the HFPI test, Equation (8) can be corrected by the following conservative approach:

Miφ ðtÞ ¼ 0:7Miz ðtÞ (9)

Therefore, the generalized wind load of Equation (6) can be written as

fðtÞ ¼ BMðtÞ (10)

 
1 1
where B ¼ diagð½ BA BB Þ, Bi ¼ Ci diag 0:7 , and M(t) is the base load matrix measured by the HFFB test,
Hi Hi
MðtÞ ¼ ½ MAx ðtÞ MAy ðtÞ MAz ðtÞ MBx ðtÞ MBy ðtÞ MBz ðtÞ T
f(t) is the finite length of time. Thus, its Fourier transform of Equation (6) exists and is written as

þ∞
Fðω; T Þ ¼ ∫−∞ fðtÞe−iωt dt (11)

where i is the imaginary unit and ω is the circular frequency sequence. The power spectral density (PSD) of the corresponding generalized force is

1
SFF ðωÞ ¼ lim Fðω; T ÞFH ðω; T Þ (12)
T→∞T

where the superscript H is the Hermitian transpose and T is the sampling time.
According to random vibration theory, the PSD of the modal response Sqq(ω) is written as

Sqq ðωÞ ¼ Hp ðωÞSFF ðωÞHH

p ðωÞ (13)

where Hp(ω) is the frequency response function matrix of the modal coordinates, which is the diagonal matrix
!
−1 ω21 ω26
Hp ðωÞ ¼ Kp daig ⋯ (14)
ω21 −ω2 þ 2ζ 1 ω1 ωi ω26 −ω2 þ 2ζ 6 ω6 ωi
4 of 16 ZHANG ET AL.

where Kp is the modal stiffness, Kp = mpΛ. The covariance matrix of modal response is obtained by the integral of Equation (13).

∞
Cqq ¼ ∫0 Sqq ðωÞ dω (15)

Thus, the covariance matrix of the response in the physical coordinates can be calculated from

Cyy ¼ ΦCqq ΦT (16)

In wind engineering research, the dynamic response is usually divided into the background component Cyb yb and the resonance component
Cyr yr . Hp(ω) is simply replaced with one of the next two equations in the calculation

Hp;b ðωÞ ¼ K−1

p (17)

Hp;r ðωÞ ¼ Hp ðωÞ−Hp;b ðωÞ (18)

where Hp, b(ω) is used to calculate the background response and Hp, r(ω) is used in the resonant response.

2.2 | Displacement and relative displacement of special position

The displacement of arbitrary position P on any floor of tower A can be calculated from the known displacement of the center of mass C on each
floor

2 38 9
1 0 −xP >< uA;C ðtÞ >
=
6 7
yA;P ðtÞ ¼ 4 0 1 yP 5 vA;C ðtÞ ¼ TA yA;C ðtÞ (19)
>
: >
;
0 0 1 φA;C ðtÞ

where (xP, yP) is the local coordinates of the specific position P relative to the center of mass C, and TA is the transformation matrix of
displacement.
A similar conversion expression also exists for any point Q on tower B

yB;Q ðtÞ ¼ TB yB;C ðtÞ (20)

Then, the relative displacement of any two points P and Q on towers A and B is

( )
yA;C ðtÞ
δðtÞ ¼ yA;P ðtÞ−yB;Q ðtÞ ¼ ½ TA −TB  (21)
yB;C ðtÞ


yCA ðtÞ
TD ¼ ½ TA −TB  and yAB ðtÞ ¼ are defined. Then, the above formula can be simplified as
yCB ðtÞ

δðtÞ ¼ TD yAB ðtÞ (22)

The corresponding covariance matrix of relative displacement is

Cδ ¼ TD CyAB TTD (23)

where CyAB is the submatrix of the covariance matrix of the overall response Cyy.
Thus, the peak relative displacement of any two points P and Q is

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
b
δ ¼ δ±g diagðCδ Þ (24)

where g is the peak factor; δ is the mean relative displacement of any two points; and b
δ ¼ ½ Δu Δv Δφ T represents two lateral relative
displacements and one relative angular displacement of the two towers.
A special program was developed based on the above formulas and was applied to analyze the wind‐induced response of a twin‐tower
structure with weak connection.
ZHANG ET AL. 5 of 16

3 | APPLICATION EXAMPLE

On the basis of the wind resistance analysis of the twin‐tower super high‐rise building connected by a bridge, the above method is applied to
further study the influence of the dynamic response of the twin‐tower structure on the bridge.

3.1 | Project introduction

The project is located in Nanshan District, Shenzhen, China, and consists of two office buildings with heights of 189.5 (40 stories) and 212 m (45
stories), both of which have a unique architectural form. Several architectural cubic boxes surround the core tube of the two towers to make the
corresponding ground a public or semipublic space, as shown in Figure 1(b). To meet the needs of the building function, the two towers are con-
nected by a truss bridge at a height of 114.5 m, as shown in Figure 1(a). The truss bridge and two towers are hinged. In addition, compared with
the tower itself, the bridge is small and has little effect on the structural dynamic property of the tower. Structural modal analysis also shows that
the structural dynamic properties of the two towers are independent of each other. Therefore, the influence of the bridge on the wind‐induced
response of the two towers can be neglected. However, the influence of the wind‐induced response of towers on the bridge cannot be neglected.

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 1 Structural elevation drawing and reference coordinate system

6 of 16 ZHANG ET AL.

The relative displacement of the two towers at the junctions should not be large. The HFFB test was conducted to study the structural wind‐
induced response to meet the needs of structural design.

3.2 | Wind tunnel experiment

The HFFB wind tunnel test was carried out in the boundary layer wind tunnel at South China University of Technology. The test model and its
surrounding environment within a radius of 500 m were installed on a 4 m diameter turntable in the wind tunnel, as shown in Figure 2. The
two buildings marked WT and ET in the figure are the west and east towers of the target building, respectively, and the heights of the surrounding
buildings above 50 m are marked in Figure 2(b). The experimental wind direction is given in Figure 1(b). The synchronous force test of HFFB was
carried out with 0° as the initial orientation and each anticlockwise 10° as a test wind direction.
A rigid model with a geometric length scale of 1:250 was made to represent the test building. Category C with a power law exponent of 0.22,
which represented an urban terrain with intensive buildings, was simulated according to the Chinese load code (GB 50009‐2012).[13] The simu-
lated mean wind speed profile and turbulence intensity distribution are shown in Figure 3. A 50‐year return period was used to determine the
wind loads and structural displacement, and the corresponding basic wind pressure was 0.75 kN/m2. Let the damping ratios of fundamental modes
be 2%. The reference height of the wind tunnel test was 0.848 m. The reference wind speed Uref at the top of the test model was 9.63 m/s, the
sampling frequency was 400 Hz, and the sampling time was 102.4 s. Table 1 shows the first three natural frequencies of the two towers.

3.3 | Test results and analysis

In accordance with the synchronous measurement results of HFFB, the displacement response of two independent towers at the bridge height
was calculated by using the above method. According to the structural characteristics, the primary focus of design is along‐bridge (x‐direction)
displacement, followed by cross‐bridge (y‐direction) and torsional direction displacements.

(a) Photo of the test model

(b) General layout

FIGURE 2 Models in the wind tunnel test and the general layout. WT = west tower; ET = east tower
ZHANG ET AL. 7 of 16

GB 50009-2012 C GB 50009-2012 C
Wind tunnel simulation Wind tunnel simulation

300 300

250 250

200 200
z/m

z/m
150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0.000 0.500 1.000 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%
V/Vr Iu
(a) Mean wind speed profile (b) Turbulence intensity profile

FIGURE 3 Mean wind speed and turbulence intensity profile

TABLE 1 First three natural frequencies of the towers (Hz)

Towers
Natural
frequency West tower East tower

Mode 1 0.228 0.198

Mode 2 0.251 0.225
Mode 3 0.268 0.246

3.3.1 | Along‐bridge displacement

Figure 4 shows the x‐direction displacements at the bridge positions of the WT and the ET and their relative displacement with the change in wind
direction. Relative displacement is the displacement of WT minus ET. Max, Min, and Mean represent the maximum, minimum, and mean of the
displacement (hereinafter inclusive), respectively. According to the above definition, values greater than 0 represent the forward motion, and those
less than 0 represent the opposite motion.
Figure 4 shows that the mean displacement of ET at 0° is negative, the absolute value of ET is higher than that of WT, and the mean displace-
ment of WT is 0.0147 m, which is greater than zero mainly because at 0°, ET is in the upwind position and WT is in the wake region of ET
(Figure 1). The mean displacement of WT is greater than zero because WT is subject to the reverse wind drag force in this case.[6] The absolute
value of the minimum peak displacement of ET at 0° is 0.219 m and is significantly greater than that of WT; the exact opposite situation occurs in
the 180° wind direction. The difference is that the mean displacement of ET is 0.0057 m, which is closer to zero, and no reverse wind drag force
exists because ET is higher than WT. At 90° and 270°, the mean displacements of ET and WT in the along‐bridge direction are both small and
opposite in sign, and each tower moves in the direction away from the other tower, thereby indicating that the suction on the adjacent surfaces
of the two towers is not larger than that on their outer surfaces.
The maximum relative displacement appeared at the 0° wind direction (0.260 m), and the minimum relative displacement appeared at the
270° wind direction (−0.260 m). A positive value means that the two connection points are close to each other, and a negative value means they
are far away from each other. The maximum and minimum peak relative displacements in the along‐bridge direction can be easily observed to be
larger than those of the independent tower.
The sensitivity of the displacement in the along‐bridge direction to the structural damping ratio at the 0° and 270° two wind directions is
further analyzed, as shown in Figure 5. Moreover, Figure 5 shows that the overall responses in both wind directions decrease with the increase
in the structural damping ratio, and the decay rate gradually slows down. Furthermore, the decay rate of the overall structural response at 270°
is faster than that at 0°, thereby indicating that the structural damping has a greater influence on the crosswind response than on the along‐
wind response.
8 of 16 ZHANG ET AL.

(a) West tower

(b) East tower

(c) Relative displacement

FIGURE 4 Variation of along‐bridge displacement and relative displacement with wind direction

3.3.2 | Crosswind displacement and angular displacement

Figure 6 shows the y‐direction displacement of the connection position of WT and ET and their relative displacement.
The above figures show a low mean displacement in the cross‐bridge direction (y‐direction) of ET and WT at 0° and 180°. As a result of the
shielding effect, the mean displacement of the shielded building is smaller than that of the shielding building. The displacements of the two
towers near the 90° wind direction are relatively stable, whereas the displacement changes relatively sharply near the 270° wind direction.
The maximum appears at 270°, where WT is 0.095 m and ET is 0.155 m. The structural response does not change considerably because the
upstream buildings of the two towers are short in the vicinity of 90° and the topography is relatively open. However, in the vicinity of 270°,
ZHANG ET AL. 9 of 16

FIGURE 5 Variation of the overall response at 0° and 270° with damping ratio

the upstream buildings are relatively tall and dense. Thus, a different degree of shielding effect will occur in different wind directions. Meanwhile,
the y‐direction at 270° is downwind, and no mutual shielding occurs between the towers. As a result, the structural response is consistent in the
changing trend.
The maximum relative displacement of 0.132 m in the cross‐bridge direction appears at 160°, whereas the minimum relative displacement of
−0.175 m appears at 10°. The results are greater than the maximum and minimum peak displacements of the independent towers because the
mean displacement directions of the two towers are opposite at 10° and 160°, thereby amplifying the mean relative displacement.
Figure 7 shows the variation of torsional response of WT and ET with the wind direction. The mean torsional response fluctuates greatly at
0°–180°, and it slightly fluctuates at 180°–360°, close to 0. The upstream of the target building is relatively open at 0°–180°. Thus, the effect of
wind load is significant. However, at 180°–360°, the target buildings are obstructed by a large number of high‐rise buildings. Thus, the average
value is small.

3.3.3 | Background and resonant components

To further explore the dominant factors that affect the structural response, the background and resonant components of relative displacement at
the bridge height were compared in different directions. Considering that the maximum relative displacement occurs in the along‐bridge direction,
the following results are given for the along‐bridge direction only, as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8 shows a sudden increase in the resonant response near 270° in the x‐direction, namely, the along‐bridge direction; thus, this
increase has a great influence on the response of the truss bridge. According to the wind field information given in Figure 3, a number of super
high‐rise buildings are present in the upstream of the target building around 270°. A low‐lying zone formed in front of the target building,
thereby leading to the channeling effect. Finally, the relative displacement of the twin tower structure at the 270° wind direction is significant
and exceeds that in the 90° wind direction. An important effect on dynamic displacement in the along‐bridge direction is the aerodynamic bend-
ing moment My around x‐axis. Figure 9 provides a comparison of the PSD of aerodynamic force My of ET and WT at 90° and 270°. The energy
of the fluctuating response of ET is significantly greater than that of WT due to the different heights. Meanwhile, the high turbulence caused by
the channeling effect makes the energy distribution of the two towers near 270° in the high‐frequency range higher than that near 90° in dif-
ferent degrees. The difference is obvious for the east tower and is the internal cause of the dynamic displacement of 270° being higher than that
of 90°.

3.3.4 | Correlation analysis of structural response

The correlation of the displacement response of the two towers at the bridge height was further analyzed. The correlation coefficient ρPQ of
dynamic displacement of any two points P and Q and the variance of relative displacement σ2δ are

CPQ
ρPQ ¼ (25)
σP σQ

σ2δ ¼ σ2P þ σ2Q −2ρPQ σP σQ (26)

where CPQ is the cross‐covariance of P and Q; and σP and σQ are the root mean square of P and Q, respectively. The above values can be obtained
from Cyy by using simple conversion.
Figure 10(a) shows the variation of the correlation coefficients of the displacement response of P and Q in the along‐bridge and cross‐
bridge directions with wind direction. In most cases, the absolute values of correlation coefficients in the cross‐bridge direction (y‐direction)
are larger than those in the along‐bridge direction (x‐direction). Equation (26) indicates that the positive correlation decreases the dynamic
relative displacement. By contrast, the negative correlation further increases the dynamic displacement. Thus, the negative correlation was
10 of 16 ZHANG ET AL.

(a) West tower

(b) East tower

(c) Relative displacement

FIGURE 6 Variation of cross‐bridge displacement and relative displacement with wind direction

separately considered. In Figure 10, the absolute value of the negative correlation coefficient is still the largest in the cross‐bridge direction but
does not exceed −0.2. For the along‐bridge direction that plays a leading role, the maximum is approximately −0.1 and appears in the vicinity of
0°; it is only −0.013 at 270°, which is the other wind direction with maximum response. Further analysis showed that if ρ = −0.4, then the
maximum error caused by ignoring the correlation is 15%. The maximum errors are only 9%, 5%, and 2% when ρ = −0.2, −0.1, and −0.05,
respectively. Therefore, when the correlation coefficient is less than 0.1, the displacement between the two towers can be considered
irrelevant.
The main factors that influence the correlation between towers are the correlation of structural frequency and aerodynamic force. Consider-
ing the former factor, the fundamental frequencies of WT were changed to be the same as those of ET. The results are shown in Figure 10(b). In
the case of the same frequencies of the two towers, the correlation coefficient changes many times, and the negative correlation coefficient
reaches −0.35 in the along‐bridge direction. The response correlation between the two towers still has no obvious influence on the relative
displacement.
ZHANG ET AL. 11 of 16

(a) West tower

(b) East tower

FIGURE 7 Variation of angular displacement with wind direction

FIGURE 8 Background and resonant components in different directions

The coherence functions at 0° and 270° were further analyzed, which affected the aerodynamic force in the along‐bridge direction. Figure 11
presents a comparison of the coherence functions of aerodynamic bending moments of the two towers at 0° and 270°. The coherence function
rapidly decays with the increase in the frequency. The high‐frequency part that contains the natural frequencies is small and oscillates at approx-
imately 0.2. Thus, we can consider that the aerodynamic force is irrelevant. Although the frequencies of the two towers are the same, the
response correlation is still weak and can thus be considered irrelevant in calculation. For this project, the response correlation of the two towers
in the along‐bridge direction is negligible for relative displacements.
12 of 16 ZHANG ET AL.

FIGURE 9 Power spectral density of aerodynamic force of east tower and west tower at 90° and 270°

4 | F U R T HE R A N A L Y S I S

4.1 | Results of the HFPI test as verification

To verify the correctness of the method and reliability of the program, a complex simultaneous pressure measurement test of the rigid model was
carried out for the twin‐tower structure. Time‐domain integration method can be used to calculate the time history of the displacement response
of each tower at the specific location. Then, the displacements of the corresponding positions can be directly subtracted to obtain the time history
of relative displacement. Finally, the mean and peak relative displacements are obtained by statistics in which the results are compared with those
of the above HFFB test. Figure 12 shows a comparison of the relative displacements △u, △v, and △φ at the bridge height with different test
methods in the 50‐year return period.
As shown in the figures above, the relative displacements Δu and Δv of HFFB around x‐axis and y‐axis are consistent with those of HFPI.
However, large differences are observed between the HFFB and HFPI tests in the relative displacement △φ at the bridge height around the
torsional direction, which is mainly related to the torsional scale of the balance used. Kareem[14] pointed out that the base torsion of the two test
methods is different. In summary, the derivation of relative displacement is correct and reliable based on the synchronous force test of HFFB.

4.2 | Influence of the sign of mode shape on the relative displacement

Randomness in phase exists due to the small correlation between the two towers. Investigating the effect of this randomness on the peak relative
displacement is important. The in‐phase and opposite phase of the mode shape are taken as examples. The comparison of the calculation results is
shown in Figure 13.
ZHANG ET AL. 13 of 16

(a) Different frequencies

(b) Sharing the frequency of ET

FIGURE 10 Comparison of correlation coefficients. ET = east tower

FIGURE 11 The x‐direction coherence functions at 0° and 270°. WT = west tower; ET = east tower

A comparison of the above three graphs allows us to conclude that the three directions are identical in the mean relative displacement. The
mean value of the load acting on the structure is equivalent to the static load. Therefore, the mean relative displacement has nothing to do with
the sign of mode shape. A slight difference exists in the peak response between the x‐direction and torsional direction using positive and negative
mode shapes, but discrepancies in the y‐direction are found at some angles. The discrepancies are related to the cross‐spectral density between
different components of wind loads. Cross‐spectrum items are related to the correlation coefficient. Thus, the wind directions with a significant
difference between the positive and negative modes are those with large correlation coefficients. In general, not much difference is observed
between the results of two mode shapes.
14 of 16 ZHANG ET AL.

FIGURE 12 Comparison of relative displacement of different test methods in different directions. HFFB = high frequency force balance;
HFPI = high‐frequency pressure integration
ZHANG ET AL. 15 of 16

(a) u-direction

(b) v-direction

(c) Torsional direction

FIGURE 13 Comparison of relative displacement with positive and negative mode shapes (50‐year return period)

5 | C O N CL U S I O N

On the basis of the synchronous force test of two HFFBs, the wind effect of a twin‐tower super high‐rise building with weak connection is
calculated on the basis of random vibration theory. The relative displacement of the two towers at the connection position is discussed. The
following conclusions can be drawn from the above research:

1. The maximum and minimum peak relative displacements are +0.132 and −0.175 m in the cross‐bridge direction and +0.260 m at 0° and
−0.260 m at 270° in the along‐bridge direction, which is the primary concern for the bridge design.
16 of 16 ZHANG ET AL.

2. The directions of maximum and minimum relative displacements in the along‐bridge direction are the along‐wind and crosswind directions,
respectively. The increase in the structural damping can reduce the relative displacement, and the structural damping has a greater influence
on the response of the crosswind direction than on the response of the along‐wind direction.
3. The correlation of displacement in the cross‐bridge direction is greater than that in the along‐bridge direction, whereas the relative displace-
ment in the along‐bridge direction is higher than that in the cross‐bridge direction. The main reason for the low correlation of the relative
displacement is the poor aerodynamic correlation between the two towers. For the construction project studied in this paper, the correlation
of response between the two towers is negligible for the relative displacements in the along‐bridge direction.
4. The results obtained by the HFFB test agree with those of the subsequent HFPI test, which illustrates the reliability and effectiveness of the
proposed method.

ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
The work described in this paper is fully supported by grants from the National Science Foundation of China (51278204). The financial support is
gratefully acknowledged.

ORCID
Lele Zhang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2397-2051

RE FE R ENC E S
[1] S. Jie, K. T. Tse, T. Yukio, A. Kareem, J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerod. 2016, 149, 1.
[2] Y. L. Lo, Y. C. Kim, Y. C. Li, J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerod. 2016, 159, 19.
[3] H. Yi, Y. Akihito, T. Yukio, J. Fluids. Struct. 2013, 37(37), 120.
[4] X. F. Yu, Z. N. Xie, X. Wang, B. Cai, J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerod. 2016, 159, 123.
[5] S. Campbell, K. C. S. Kwok, P. A. Hitchcock, J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerod. 2017, 93(6), 461.
[6] Z. N. Xie, M. Gu, Eng. Struct. 2004, 26(9), 1173.
[7] G. Ming, P. Huang, L. Tao, et al., J. Fluids. Struct. 2010, 26(7–8), 1142.
[8] Z. N. Xie, M. Gu, J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerod. 2007, 95(1), 31.
[9] K. M. Lam, S. S. Y. Wong, A. P. To Y. F. Fong Shielding effects on a tall building from various configurations of surrounding medium‐rise buildings. 2013.
[10] I. Q. M. Zahid, A. L. S. Chan, Build. Environ. 2016, 101, 45.
[11] N. J. Cook, J. Phys. E. Sci. Instrum. 1983, 16(5), 390.
[12] T. Tschanz, A. G. Davenport, J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerod. 1983, 13(1), 429.
[13] GB 5009–2012 Load code for the design of building structures. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press, 2012 [in Chinese].
[14] K. Ahsan, J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerod. 1990, 36(1), 589.

Lele Zhang is a PhD student at South China University of Technology. She received BS from Ludong University and MS from Shantou
University. Her research interests include modal parameter identification and wind engineering.

Wentao Cheng is a master student at South China University of Technology. He received BS from South China University of Technology. His
research interests include structural health monitoring and structural dynamic.

Zhuangning Xie is a professor of South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China. He received BS and MS from Xian Jiaotong
University and PhD from Tongji University. His research interests include engineering random vibration, wind engineering, and so on.

How to cite this article: Zhang L, Cheng W, Xie Z. Wind effect of a twin‐tower super high‐rise building with weak connection. Struct
Design Tall Spec Build. 2018;e1503. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1503