Predicting Pressure Distributions Using CFD

,
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Dept. of Civil Eng. Structural Eng.
Predicting Pressure Distributions on Surfaces of Arbitrary Geometry from CFD –

a preliminary study
By
I Gede Adi Susila
Thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering

University of Newcastle upon Tyne
in partial fulfilment of requirement for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Structural Engineering
APPROVED:
P. D. Gosling, Supervisor
August 2001
Newcastle upon Tyne
Keywords: Wind Loads, Fabric Membrane Structure, Cable-suspended roof, published data, CFD method,
LES (Large Eddy Simulation- Smagorinsky +Lilly model viscosity).
Wind Loading on a Fabric Structure 1

,
Predicting Pressure Distributions on Surfaces of Arbitrary Geometry

from CFD – a preliminary study
Abstract
Structural fabric membrane for many years have been applied and developed for large span
enclosures for variety of purposes. More recently, structures that combine highly flexible cable
integrated with fabric membranes have been designed as structural integral system. Accurate
assessment of wind load distribution is important because the large surface area usually projected
by a fabric membrane structure means that wind pressure is a significant load case. The
requirement to predict wind loading on structures of complex geometry form is absolutely needed.
Computational Fluidal Dynamic (CFD analysis) is highly pointed to solve a number of wind
tunnel test problem on the computer simulation. Large-eddy simulation (LES) technique with the
Smagorinsky eddy-viscosity model has been applied in order to predict pressure coefficients for 3-D
domes and catenoid models. “Fluent” has been used to analyze the flows. Published data of Maher
and the ASCE have been used as the basis guideline to enable wind loading to be applied
appropriately.
Table of Mean pressure coefficient around the

sphere under LES simulation
1
mean external Cp
0.621
0.5
0.318
0 -0.144
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
-0.5 -0.289
-0.441 -0.744
-1
-1.2
-1.5
Angle, @ (degree) Cp Around Wall
Plan view: pressure coefficients
for y/d = ½ (hemisphere) Maher’s Plan view of pressure coefficient contour
y/d=h/D=1/2 on CFD
Result of LES computations are compared with those from laminar models as well as those from
turbulent models based on Reynolds–average Navier-Stokes equation (RANS model) and those
from experiment. The numerical experiment results for all models with various configurations to be
exited by the turbulent wind forces were identified. The LES results from 3D computational agreed
very well with the experimental or published data. For the dome case of h/d=1/2 ratio, the result can
be sort it out into the maximum positive Cp=+0.621 and the maximum negative in the centre of
dome is Cp = -1.2. The coefficient offered was quit similar to the published data of Cp=+0.6 and
Cp=-1.0, respectively.
In the limited study presented in this dissertation, CFD has been shown to a reasonable
prediction of wind pressure distributions. Conceivably it could replace some wind tunnel tests.
However, further study of CFD applied to the structural engineering problem is still needed in
order to evaluate the reliability of the numerical results.
Keywords: Wind Loads, Fabric Membrane Structure, Cable-suspended roof, published data, CFD
method, LES (Large Eddy Simulation- Smagorinsky +Lilly model viscosity).
Corresponding author: E-mail: Gede.Susila@postgard.machester.ac.uk / adiari2004@yahoo.co.uk /
adisusila@civil.unud.ac.id
Present Address: 11 Sedgley Road, Crumpsall, Manchester, M8 5AG. UK.

,
Table of Contents
List of Figure ............................................................................................................. vii
List of Table .............................................................................................................. xv
Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2. Literature Review................................................................................. 5

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Cable-Suspended Structures ....................................................................... 5
2.3 Fabric Membrane Structures ...................................................................... 17
2.4 Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) for Wind Loading .......................... 23
2.5 Wind Tunnel Test ....................................................................................... 35
2.5.1 Wind Tunnel Techniques................................................................... 37
2.5.2 Small Wind Tunnel............................................................................ 43
2.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 43
Chapter 3. Numerical Methods .............................................................................. 44

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 44
3.2 Finite Element Theory and CFD Methods Reviews................................... 44
3.2.1 The CFD Code................................................................................... 51
Pre-processor .................................................................................... 51
Solver................................................................................................. 51
Post-processor.................................................................................... 52
3.2.2 Fluid Flow Problem and Governing Equations on CFD ................... 53
3.2.3 General Fluid Dynamic Background................................................. 60
3.3 General Strategies and Procedures ............................................................. 62
AutoCAD Reviews ............................................................................ 63
Pre-processor: GAMBIT Reviews .................................................... 64
Solver: Fluent Reviews...................................................................... 67
Post-processor.................................................................................... 68
3.4 Detail of Model Experimental .................................................................... 68

,
3.4.1 Single Cooling Tower Model ............................................................ 70

3.4.1.a Detail Procedure and Instruction ........................................... 71
3.4.1.b The Result of the Laminar Flows of Cooling Tower ............ 77
3.4.1.c The Result of the Turbulent Flows under Large Eddy
Simulation (LES) of Cooling Tower ..................................... 82
3.4.2 Multiple Cooling Tower model ......................................................... 86
3.4.2.a The Result of the Turbulent Flows under Large Eddy
Simulation (LES) of Multiple Cooling Tower ...................... 88
3.4.3 Single Sphere Model ......................................................................... 93
3.4.3.a The Result of the Turbulent Flows under Large Eddy
Simulation (LES) of Single Sphere ....................................... 95
3.4.4 Multiple Sphere Model...................................................................... 97
3.4.4.a The Result of the Laminar of Multiple Sphere ...................... 99
Chapter 4. Experimental Methods......................................................................... 101

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 101
4.2 Experimental Work Procedure ................................................................... 103
4.2.1 1:1000 Scale Model of Cooling Tower and Sphere Model ............... 103
4.2.2 Wind Tunnel Testing and Requirement............................................ 104
4.3 Published Experimental Data and Comparison with CFD result ............... 107
4.3.1 Published Data for Sphere/Domes problem ............................. 107
4.3.2 Published Data for Hyperbolic Cooling Tower problem ......... 108
4.3.3 Comparison and Discussion of Published data to the
CFD result ................................................................................ 109
4.3.3.a Single Cooling Tower............................................................ 109
4.3.3.b Single Sphere......................................................................... 112
Chapter 5. Conclusions ........................................................................................... 115

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 115
5.2 Wind Tunnel Testing.................................................................................. 115

,
5.3 Wind loading test on CFD method ............................................................. 115

5.3.1 Comparison reliability between Laminar and Turbulent problem
flow model in CFD method ............................................................ 116
5.3.2 Comparison between published data and CFD method study
of wind loading to fabric membrane structure................................... 116
5.4 General Conclusion and Recommendations
Bibliography............................................................................................................. 118
Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................... 119
Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................... 120
Appendix 3 ............................................................................................................... 123
Appendix 4 ............................................................................................................... 149
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Tent Model ............................................................................................... 1
Figure 1.2 Membrane Roof Model ............................................................................ 1
Figure 1.3 Illustration of wind acting on fabric structure.......................................... 2
Figure 1.4. Example contour of pressure coefficient ................................................ 3

,
Figure 2.1.Static behaviour and various types of suspended roof ............................. 6

Figure 2.2 various types of suspended roof............................................................... 6
Figure 2.3 Behaviour of cable system ....................................................................... 6
Figure 2.4 Deflection of cable system ....................................................................... 7
Figure 2.5 Wind pressure distribution ....................................................................... 9
Figure 2.6 Antisymmetric wind load effect............................................................... 9
Figure 2.7. Circular plan referencing cable system. .................................................. 9
Figure 2.8. Stadium Detail by Irwin cs & Inc. Figure2.9-10..................................... 11
Figure 2.9. Mean force coefficient ............................................................................ 12
Figure 2.10. Mean deflection at φ=900 ...................................................................... 12
Figure 2.11. Structure Layout.................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.12. Wind Pressure Distribution, by Yasui, cs included Figure2.11 ............ 12
Figure 2.13. La-Plata Stadium by Rocha cs, & included Figure2.14-15.................. 13

Figure 2.14. Mean wind pressure, α=1800 .............................................................. 16
Figure 2.15 Standard Deviation of wind pressure, α=1800 ....................................... 16
Figure 2. 16 Hybrid double-layer system by Ando,cs............................................... 16
Figure 2.17. Wind pressure coefficient Distribution. ................................................ 16
Figure 2.18. Millennium Dome by Kronenburg, A & B ........................................... 17
Figure 2.19 Membrane in tension by Shaeffer .......................................................... 19
Figure 2.20 Hyperbolic surface of membrane .......................................................... 19
Figure 2.21The hangar structural scheme by Kazakevitch........................................ 20
Figure 2.22 Pressure distribution on the membrane roofing at any surface (a) the stage of
erection, β=0; ε=0.5%- on upper surface, 2-the net values on the upper and
lower surfaces;(b), (c) The completed stage (on the upper surface); 3,4 in
section a; 3-β=900, ε=0.5%; 4-β=900 , ε=8%, etc.e by Kazakevitch ...... 20
Figure 2.23 Structural section, Park Dome Kumamoto (1999)................................. 22
Figure 2.24 General Approach Design Tensile Membrane Structure by Campbell (2000)
23
Figure 2.25 Visual Post-processing, Voogt (1990).................................................... 24
Figure 2.26 Stubwing and pressure measurement Voogt (1990)............................... 24
Figure 2.27 Calculation grid in a close vicinity of the cube, Mikkelsen &
Livesey (1995) ...................................................................................... 25

,
Figure 2.28 Cp value shown as isobar for an angle of 00 Mikkelsen & Livesey
(1995..................................................................................................... 25
Figure 2.29 Comparison between full-scale, model scale and numerically predicted Cp
for h/z0= 180 ......................................................................................... 25
Figure 2.30 The computational grid in close vicinity of the obstacle, Lakehal (1998)
.............................................................................................................. 26
Figure 2.31 Pressure coefficient distribution at the symmetry plane, Lakehal (1998)
.............................................................................................................. 26
Figure 2.32 Comparison of pressure coefficient distribution at a horizontal plane z/H for different
approach flow angles:/, Lakehal (1998) ............................................... 27
Figure 2.33 Unstructured hexahedral meshes around typical building configuration, Kim &
Boysan (1999) ...................................................................................... 28
Figure 2.34 Flow over the curved two-dimensional hill- predictions using four different turbulence
models, bottom left: pressure distribution and bottom right; skin-friction distribution.
Kim & Boysan (1999) .......................................................................... 29
Figure 2.35 Distribution of pressure coefficient (Cp) on 1:1:0.5 building of conical vortex at the
roof corner predicted by revised model k-ε ( k-ε−φ model by Kawamoto, 1995
30
Figure 2.36 Conical vortex at the roof corner predicted by LES, by Murakami, 1997 30
Figure2.37 Computational model of the AIJ project by Tamura,cs. ......................... 33
Figure 2.38 Kinetic turbulent energy: a). Smargorinsky model, b). Dynamic SGS model, by
Tamura,cs ............................................................................................. 34
Figure 2.39 Mean pressure coefficient on the roof: a). Smargorinsky model, b). Dynamic SGS
model, by Tamura,cs ............................................................................ 34
Figure 2.40 Heler-type dry-cooling tower, by Su,cs. ................................................ 35
Figure 2.41 Computational region and coordinate system, by Su, cs. ...................... 35
Figure 2.42 Contour of pressure in the horizontal plane (Z=9m, cross wind speed of 5 m/s), by
Su, cs........................................................................................................ 35
Figure 2.43. Experimental planning and execution process diagram........................ 38
Figure 2.44. Representative data flow. ...................................................................... 39
Figure 2.45 Dome geometry and coordinate system, by Uematsu............................ 40

,
Figure 2.46 Distributions of the mean and rms pressure coefficient Cp and
C’p H/D =1/4, by Uematsu................................................................. 40
Figure 2.47 Tapping arrangement and wind direction definition for single dome test, by
Letchford,cs .......................................................................................... 42
Figure 2.48 Comparison of mean pressure coefficient along centerline of a smooth dome, by
Letchford,cs .......................................................................................... 42
Figure3.1 Three-dimensional stress on an element, by Logan .................................. 45
Figure 3.2 Tetrahedral solid element, by Logan........................................................ 46
Figure 3.3 Mass flow in and out of fluid element, by Versteeg & Malalasekera...... 55
Figure 3.4 Stress components on three faces of fluid element, by Versteeg & Malalasekera
56
Figure 3.5 Stress components in the x-direction, by Versteeg & Malalasekera........ 56
Figure 3.6 (a) Boundary condition for an internal flow problem Versteeg & Malalasekera 58
Figure 3.6 (b) Boundary condition for external flow problem, by Versteeg & Malalasekera
59
Figure 3.7 Velocity profiles at different locations downstream of an obstacle, by Versteeg &
Malalasekera......................................................................................... 59
Figure 3.8 by Potts (MMM336) ................................................................................ 60
Figure 3.9 by Potts (MMM336) ................................................................................ 60
Figure 3.10 Example mesh geometric in AutoCAD.................................................. 63
Figure 3.11 Arranged position of inlet, outlet and wall boundaries in AutoCAD .... 63
Figure 3.12 The geometry that will be exported from AutoCAD ............................. 63
Figure 3.13 Arranged model generated, domain, and floating element (tetrahedral) 65
Figure 3.14 Arranged position of inlet, outlet and wall boundaries in AutoCAD .... 66
Figure 3.15.a Sphere Elevation.................................................................................. 69
Figure 3.15.b Cooling Tower Elevation .................................................................... 69
Figure 3.16 Computational domain development ..................................................... 69

,
Figure 3.17 Sketch of Heler-type dry cooling tower (De1.igs of IGES file) ............ 70
Figure 3.18 Internal count space................................................................................ 70
Figure 3.19 Domain of Single Cooling Tower .......................................................... 71
Figure 3.20 Computational region and coordinate system. ....................................... 71
Figure 3.21. Surface mesh on rear of cooling tower ................................................. 72
Figure 3.22 Brick and Cooling tower ........................................................................ 73
Figure 3.23 Elements within a specified quality range of 0.6 upper and 0. 7 lower ratios
74
Figure 3.24 Plot the residual of laminar flow and number iteration converged at 118.
76
Figure 3.25 Plot the residual of turbulent flow and 427 number iteration converged
77
Figure 3.26.a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan (Coded
De1) ...................................................................................................... 77
Figure 3.26.b Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from side elevation .. 78
Figure 3.26.c Diagram pressure coefficient in distance position of the model to the
sources. ................................................................................................. 78
Figure 3.26.d Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.2 H ~ 32 m (Plane-5) . 79
Figure 3.26.e Diagram pressure coefficient at z =0.2 H ~ 32 m (Plane-5)................ 79
Figure 3.26.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6) 80
Figure 3.26.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6) ............ 80
Figure 3.26.h Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.7 H ~ 112 m (Plane-7) 81
Figure 3.26.i Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.7 H ~ 112 m (Plane-7) ............. 81
Figure 3.27.a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan (Coded
De11) .................................................................................................... 82
Figure 3.27.c Diagram pressure coefficient in distance position of the model to the sources
82

,
Figure 3.27.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6) 84
Figure 3.27.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6) ............ 84
Figure 3.27.h Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.7 H ~ 112 m (Plane-7) 85
Figure 3.27.i Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.7 H ~ 112 m (Plane-7) ............. 85
Figure 3.28 Sketch of Multiple Cooling Tower (De5.igs of IGES file).................... 86
Figure 3.29 Domain of Multiple Cooling Tower ...................................................... 86
Figure 3.30. Grid mesh generating of imported file IGES from AutoCAD in Gambit. 87
Figure 3.31. Surface mesh on rear of multiple cooling tower ................................... 87
Figure 3.32 Brick and Cooling tower ........................................................................ 87
Figure 3.33 Elements within a specified quality range of 0.6 upper and 0. 7 lower ratios 87
Figure 3.34.a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan . 88
Figure 3.34.c Diagram pressure coefficient in distance position of the model to the sources.
89
Figure 3.34.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 58.5 m (Plane-6) 91
Figure 3.34.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.45 H ~ 58.5 m (Plane-6) ......... 91
Figure 3.34.h Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.7 H ~ 91 m (Plane-7) . 92
Figure 3.34.i Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.7 H ~ 91 m (Plane-7) ............... 92
Figure 3.35 Sketch of Single Sphere (De3.igs of IGES file)..................................... 93
Figure 3.36 Domain of Single Sphere. ...................................................................... 93
Figure 3.37. Grid mesh generating of imported file IGES from AutoCAD in Gambit and already
meshed on rear of sphere surface. ........................................................ 94

,
Figure 3.38. Brick and Sphere ................................................................................... 94
Figure 3.39 .The mesh developed on domain............................................................ 94
Figure 3.41.a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan (Coded De31)
95
96
Figure 3.42 Sketch of Multiple Sphere (De4.igs of IGES file) ................................. 97
Figure 3.43 Domain of Multiple Sphere.................................................................... 97
Figure 3.44. Grid mesh generating of imported file IGES from AutoCAD in Gambit 98
Figure 3.45. Surface mesh on rear of multiple cooling tower ................................... 98
Figure 3.46. Brick and Sphere ................................................................................... 98
99
100
Figure 4.1a: 1:1000 Scale Model of Single Sphere .................................................. 101
Figure 4.1b: Sketch Model of Single Sphere............................................................. 101
Figure 4.2a: 1:1000 Scale Model of Single Sphere .................................................. 101
Figure 4.2b: Sketch Model of Multiple Sphere ........................................................ 101
Figure 4.3a: 1:1000 Scale Model of Single Cooling Tower..................................... 102
Figure 4.3b: Sketch Model of Single Cooling Tower .............................................. 102
Figure 4.4 a: 1:1000 Scale Model of Multiple Cooling Tower ................................ 102
Figure 4.4b: Sketch Model of Multiple Cooling Tower........................................... 102

,
Figure 4.5 Typical open-circuit wind tunnel ............................................................. 104
Figure 4.6 Scheme the open-circuit of small wind tunnel......................................... 104
Figure 4.7.a – c Photo Small Wind Tunnel ............................................................... 105
Figure 4.8. Open or closed –throat wind tunnel. ....................................................... 106
Figure 4.9. Elevation of circular dome rising directly from the ground.................... 107
Figure 4.10. Plan view: pressure coefficients for y/d = ½ (hemisphere)................... 107
Figure 4.11. Plan view: pressure coefficient for y/d = ¼ .......................................... 107
Figure 4.12. Distribution of local mean pressure coefficient around the throat of the cooling tower
(ASCE, 1987) ....................................................................................... 108
Figure 4.13. Distribution of local mean pressure coefficient at different height around the
hyperbolic throat of the cooling tower (ASCE, 1987).......................... 108
Figure 4.14. Distribution of root – mean square pressure coefficient around throat of a hyperbolic
cooling tower (ASCE, 1987) ................................................................ 109
Figure 4.15. Guiding the angle to describe the pressure coefficient around throat combine with
various of a different height measurement. .......................................... 111
113
Figure 2.48 Comparison of mean pressure coefficient along centreline of a smooth dome, by
Letchford, cs ......................................................................................... 113

,
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Details of model roof materials ................................................................... 21

Table 3.1 Laminar and turbulent flow model ............................................................ 61
Table 3.2 Turbulent flow equations for compressible flows,
by Versteeg & Malalasekera...................................................................... 61
Table 4.1 Limiting values of Cpe and values CL for domes rising directly from the ground.
................................................................................................................. 108
Table 4.2 Distribution of local mean pressure coefficient around the hyperbolic Cooling
Tower ro represented the fabric structure by CFD method under Large Eddy
Simulation (LES-Smagorinsky &Lilly)................................................... 109
Table 4.3 Distribution of local mean pressure coefficient at different heights around the
Cooling Tower to represented the fabric structure by CFD method under Large
Eddy Simulation (LES-Smagorinsky & Lilly) ........................................ 110
Table 4.3.a. Distribution of local mean pressure coefficient at different heights around the
Cooling Tower to represented the fabric structure by CFD method under
Large Eddy Simulation (LES-Smagorinsky & Lilly)........................... 110
Table 4.3.b. Distribution of local mean pressure coefficient at different heights around the
Table 4.3.c. Distribution of local mean pressure coefficient at different heights around the
Table 4.4 Mean pressure coefficient around the sphere under LES simulation ........ 114

,
Chapter 1 Introduction
Fabric membrane structures utilize advanced technology that enables large span structure to
be built as lightweight and easily deployable. Fabric structures include tents, pressurised and air
supported, sails and inflatable that resist applied load by a combination of curvature and tension (pre-
stress) roofing system.
The tents models have been used with

considered perfect advanced material of a
membrane roof with predominantly tensile
forces. A historical review of suspended roofs
suggests that the tent is the earliest version of a
tension roof, (Fig. 1.1).
Fig.1.1 Tent Model
The tent structure has given inspiration to
improve model structures. Fabric membrane
structures have constructed for a large stadium,
aircraft hangar, wide roofing on entertainment
building and much more variety of purposed,
(Fig.1.2).
Fig.1.2 Membrane Roof Model
More recently, light fabric membrane structures combined with cable suspended roof are considered
as integral system structures. However, a more accurate assessment of load distribution also
considering extreme climate or weather condition effects is important for a complete and accurate
understanding of behaviour of the system structure.
The large surface area usually projected by a fabric membrane structure means that wind
pressure is a significant load case. It may also be could be strongly influenced by the basic
structural form of the roof. However, a problem exist is predicting the applied loading to
membrane roof structures estimates of wind loading to complex geometric form are required.
Industry provided data of CFD (Computational Fluidal Dynamic) and relatively small number of
wind tunnel test form the basis of an approach to enable wind loading to be applied appropriately.

,
The aim of wind tunnel test and CFD is to provide information on local wind patterns,
coefficient of wind pressure, and wind-induced structural vibration. The use of wind tunnels is to
determine the response of a structure to wind forces and to determine the pattern of wind flow to
leeward of a structure. Investigations are carried out on the eddy formation behind model
membrane structures to find the frequency and strength of oscillatory forces on the structure of a
turbulent air-stream, and on the simulation of natural boundary layer effect, (Fig.1.3).
The objective of the present research is to develop procedures for accurate and efficient
analysis, particularly to estimate wind loading on non-conventional structures and complex geometry
with criteria to the design of tent structures or cable suspended roofs. In this study testing and CFD
analysis of scale models are used to obtain a better understanding of how these structures behave
under wind loading conditions. The specific contribution of qualitative observations and quantitative
measurements of the behavior of the model could be used to supplement failure criteria in related
design procedures and serve as a basis for analytical and physical comparisons.
On CFD method, the initial design model structures were developed on AutoCAD in order to
generate the complex geometric of shape model structures desired. Mesh model structure was
exported into Gambit, which is a pre-processing CFD to assembled and associate with Fluent.
A shape of wind tunnel model was also
created on Gambit, which the model
structure generation was placed in the
middle of tunnel model. The mesh
generation resulted by Gambit will then
exported to the Fluent. The Fluent as a
solver then associated a particularly need in
which the model appropriately generated.
Fig.1.3 Illustration of wind acting on fabric structure
Using facilities available, boundary conditions can be applied in order to specify in which condition
approached. Fluent solver will process the mesh through running iteration for time period depend on
number of element generation. The result of model generation can be obtained and displayed as
contour pressure distribution or velocity distribution as well as data script, (Fig.1.4).

,
Fig.1.4. Example contour of pressure coefficient

Several model structures were used in this particular cases such as Sphere, Cooling Tower,
China hat model and tandem combination on each model in CFD. The same model tried to involve in
wind tunnel too. In wind tunnel model, there were used lamp shade, small ball, and bowl and fiber-
glass resin as basic material to perform the shape model of fabric membrane structure. All models
measured approximately in 150mm x 150mm each of plan area. The shape of structures model were
constructed look like dome/sphere and China hat model represented cooling tower model. All of them
were investigated under low-speed wind tunnel testing.
When the airflow approaches a building, it is impinged around and over the surface of
building. The force will create areas of pressure or suction on part of building such as facades, gables
and roof. In this study, the material building is fabric membrane structure and cable suspended so that
leads to the extraordinary buildings geometric developed. It is the significant requirement to evaluate
wind loading by CFD method or wind tunnel test. Once model structure has been examined
completely, the result can be combined to the standard method of wind loads in order to analysis a
p
structure related. The important result expected is local mean pressure coefficient ( Cp = 1 )
2
ρV 2
known as dimensionless pressure, it will then combined with the area pressure coefficient. The area
pressure coefficient is integration the local mean pressure coefficient over a surface area such as the

,
roof, gable, etc or part of building faced the wind and then divided by the area yields the area pressure
coefficient, which can be used conveniently for determining the wind loads on specific area of
building. The pressure coefficient being indicated by a positive Cp value and a negative value
(suction pressure). The pressure counted at any point on the surface is also a fraction of the dynamic
pressure (qs). Relationship to the building design is when value of dynamic pressure (qs) combined
with pressure coefficient whether is external or internal. Since the combination between dynamic
pressure and coefficient pressure occurred, the wind load can be obtained and then can be applied to
the building design.
Data from the computer simulation model and from wind tunnel testing or published data
were collected, tabulated, and assessed. Comparable experimental results of CFD model simulations
are discussed, conclusions are drawn, and recommendations for further research are presented.
Procedures considering is intended to develop more relevant, efficiently, and effectively in order to
know wind-loading distribution of the membrane structure presented.

,
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
The use of permanently installed fabric membranes structure is increasing all the time.
Typical structures constructed basically similar form to a normal building or integrated an
extraordinary with whatsoever curvature form make it, however those have roof materials sheet
replaced with fabric membranes (layer skin). This type structures under investigation, which has
combined with cable suspended roof. Both of material structures are focused as large areas of
research, using numerical and experimental methodologies. Many experimental and numerical
researches have been established regarding wind loading using wind tunnel test and numerical
methods on CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamic). However, a dearth of numerical as well as
experimental research has been performed regarding wind load on variety of shape fabric membrane
structures. Type of research can be found on pressurized arch, beam structure, and inflatable
combined fabric membrane structures, these structural types have not been research to extent of many
types of shape of structural supported membrane structure.
Examples of research conducted on variety of shape of fabric membrane structure, and cable-
suspended are presented. Consideration of various research methods and different aspect of the
structure have been balanced. The research presented here is aimed to evaluate the need for further
analysis and investigation of cable-suspended supported membrane structures.
2.2 Cable-Suspended Structures

Cable-suspended roof has been used for many years ago. The ancient style of roofing system
is tents, which are motivated to form an advance model structure of a membrane roof on the cable
suspended. The historical of tent combined with cable is a review of suspended roofs suggest that the
earliest version of tension roof. (Prem Krisnha 1978, p.1). The cable structure would be supported the
membrane that is majority resisted pressure of wind load.
The suspended roof was acting on which is the lower tension flange of the cable net and the
upper compression flange is replaces by the edge ring or by the anchoring, (Fig.2.1b). Thus, it is
consist of two cable rows that can only take two-dimensional tension so that is mean the structure will
take a small compression only when pre-stressed without any shear taken or has no shear rigidity.

,
Refer to these form

that the original form
of the roof could
equilibrate a given
load only with the
addition A B
Fig.2.1.Static behavior and various types of suspended roof
of shear, then the actual suspended
roof is forced to change its shape
into a new form that will be able to
carry the load without shear. That
is clear; the form adopted is one of
funicular surface of the load. Since
the cables are able to Fig.2.2 various types of suspended roof.
take a compressive force; the suspended roof given a shape that it may be possible to pretension the
cables. Hyperbolic surface shown in (Fig.2.2) that has an opposite curvature in two cable directions.
Nonlinear behavior shown by cables when loaded, and there are varies of degree non-linearity
with the types of cable structure and also the loading. A cable has to follow the funicular curve in
order to sustain loads. It undergoes large geometric adjustments, particularly when the loading is
concentrated or un-symmetric. Figure2.3. shows feature
of the behavior of a
cable, this to a
smaller or larger
degree is applicable
to cable-roof system
and poses a serious
problem in analysis.
(Prem Krisnha 1978,
p.3-5).
Fig.2.3 Behavior of cable system

,
x
ql2
H= 1.1
8f
z
(q + ∆q ) l 2
H +h = 1.2
8( f + Wm )
Fig.2.4 Deflection of cable system
(q + ∆q ) l 2
( Hf + hf ) + ( H Wm hWm ) = 1.3
8
The characteristic of the behavior of the cable is that their deformation is relatively large, and affects
the system of internal forces. Horizontal component of the cable force is due to the load f to let the
cable sag, (Fig.2.4a) which can be magnitude on Eq.1.1. By increasing load ∆q, the cable elongation
has been changed, which increased the sag on cable by Wm and resulted addition horizontal force by
h, written on Eq.1.2. On an antisymmetric load qant case, the only matter has changed is its shape with
no changed by arising force of H due to q, shown on, (Fig.7b). (Szabo & Kollar, 1984, p.16-18).
There are considered a cable segment as the basic structural element in suspended roof.
Governing equations and the analysis of a freely hanging cable are important to understand, so
that a special section on it would be written in Appendix 1.
The cable is a strand or a rope made out of high-strength steel wire. The strand as well as the
rope is protected with a uniform coating of pure zinc. Cables are available in standard size along with
the appropriate fittings to facilitate cable connections with each other and also to other structural
members. The breaking strength of cables is in the region of 1380 N/mm2 and the modulus of
elasticity is of the order of 138 to 166 kN/mm2. (Prem Krisnha 1978, p.18-19).
In cable suspended roofs, the system of cables carries the roof load directly and as such
has a primary structural function. The cable system also serves a false work for erection of
cladding. The need for large-span roofs is quit often governed by functional and aesthetic
requirement, rather than by economic or structural consideration.
For the general design considerations that the problem encountered that suspended roof would
be considered cause of the significantly in the design and construction of long span roofs, such as the
need for a more accurate assessment of load distribution. Related to the suspension cable, there are

,
also have a problem of the provision of adequate static stiffness, avoiding the occurrence of flutter;
anchorage and pre-tensioning of cables and the design of the supporting structure and etc., which
assumed special importance for suspended roof. Site condition could be strong influence on basic
structural form of the roof. If site condition doesn’t permit build individually, a large span suspended
roof can be profitably planned between two buildings of adequate strength, which will serve as
anchor for the cable.
The material cable roof suspended structure can be broadly subdivided into two-the
supporting structure and the roof cladding. The supporting structure may be constructed of plain,
reinforced, or pre-stressed concrete, steel, or a combination of the two. The final choice will be
governed by aesthetic and structural considerations and economics. The cladding can be further
subdivided into: (1) cables and their connections, (2) auxiliary framework that supports the
decking and is placed over the cables, (3) roofing which is the external waterproofing skin, and
(4) the insulating layer.
The durability of cable can only be defined by design life expectation of the structure, which
the materials are designed for permanent and temporary use. Application material cable supported
roof was not involved in the specification of building codes so that is much more needing concern on
fire protection due to the fire causes creep to the cable. Cable roof are generally classified as flexible
material structures because the restriction of allowable deflection on these system doesn’t it same to
the conventional of beam and slab structure. The necessary considerations of cable structures are
deflection on the system and the limited slopes occurred. (Prem Krisnha, 1978, p.22-23). Many
experimental and numerical researches have been done in order to manage the wind acting.
The wind load acting to the light and widen the roof surface structures dominantly, which is
measured per unit area of horizontal projection. The loading intensity can be specified in between two
hanging cables and two bracing cable. The cables are anchored in boundary structures that may
consist of column or anchored in arches. Simplified system is the cable net was composed of a system
of simple tension members and the joint in the net are frictionless hinges. (See fig.2.1-2.2). However,
the consideration static loading, temperature changes and support movements are enclosed, which the
distributed load (Mollmann, 1974, p. 162-163). The load distribution would be supported in any
direction by the suspended cable.

,
The cables structures are able to take a compression force in term of pre-stresses state the
suspended roof has given a shape that it would be possible to pre-tension the cable. That is way the
roof and the net should form a hyperbolic surface. The dynamic effect of the wind load action on
suspended roof partly causes a tendency for the entire structure to vibrate and partially way give rise
to local “flutter”. (Szabo & Kollar, 1984, p. 14). The cable specification would be more interesting to
be defined in all aspect structures term with the reliability proved as primarily structures. Response
structures of cable can be defined from the potential strength in tensile.
The basic of the cable behavior is that the changing their shape without elongation
according to the balance the antisymmetric load with unchanged the cable force. Since that
happened, the load distribution affected the cable defection that mostly due to the wind load.
(Szabo & Kollar, 1984. p.30-31). In the case of antisymmetric load it is a significant change of
the cable shape. It can be shown in figure 2.5.a.b, which is the change of the row of cables in one
direction and the other case is that, the row of cables
Fig.2.5 Wind pressure distribution

Fig.2.6 Antisymmetric wind load effect
changed in both directions, shows in

Tan α = 2. fig. 2.5c. That is convenient taken as
a basis those cable which intersect
0
α = 63 25’ each other at their quarter points.
Figure 2.7 indicated the ratios of a
Sin α = 0.89. circular ground plan. The affinity to
the elliptic ground plan figure 2.5
and 2.6, so that the same ratio can
Fig.2.7. Circular plan referencing
cable system. be retained.
Note: fig. 2.5-2.7 by Szabo, cs.

,
The proportions of the loads (qx and qy) taken by the cables, including deflection wx and wy of the
two perpendicular cables at their point of intersection (figure 2.6a). The two divisions load and
the deflection of the two cables at the point intersection can be written into:
qx + q y = q 1.4
2
 0.89 lx 
qx  
wx =  2 
1.5
8 nx
2
 0.89 ly 
qy  
wy =  2 
1.6
8 ny
Explanation of figure 2.6b is somewhat more complicated due to only the y-direction cable is
able to change its shape without elongation. Eq. 1.6 gives the deflection of the y-direction cable
at the quarter point. On the other hand, the deflection of the x-directional cable can be determined
by approximation of the static cable behavior:
3 l2 1.7
wk = h
16 f E A1
∆q l 2 1.8
h=
8f
At its quarter point, ¾ of the greatest deflection occurs

3 3 (0.89lx) 4 1.9
wx = q x
4 128 (0.79 fx) q ( EA1 ) x
9 lx 4 1.10
wx = qx q
512 fx ( EA1 ) x
(J Szabo & L. Kollar, 1984. p.31-47)
In order to gain design load of the fabric structure, that is very dominantly factor of wind load
involved so that is needed to investigate wind behavior on the fabric structure shape in some
cases.
This kind of building type has been researched (e.g. Irwin & Wardlaw 1973; Marcelo Rocha,
Sandro Cabral & Jorge Riena, 2000; Yasni, Marukawa, Katagiri, Katsumira, Tamura & Watanabe,
1999). Attempt to understand the structural characteristics have been undertaken with numerical and

,
experimental approaching methods. This research would be conducted to the appropriate design
methodology research.
Irwin and Wardlaw, 1973 performed wind tunnel test on retractable fabric roof for the
Montreal Olympic Stadium in Canada, (Fig.2.8). The physical structure has a cable-supported
membrane that is attached to a rigid structure. The potential roles on it have physical quantities of
cable-supported membrane roof behavior under wind action in the following measurement:
MF (mass of roof fabric per unit area),
An appropriate
Mc (mass of cable per unit length),
ρ ( density of air), set drawn are:
b (typical length of roof), ρUb U 2
KT (slope of tension versus strain curve for warp or weft direction), , ,
µ bg
Ks (slope of shear loading versus shear strain curve for warp or weft direction),
MF KT
U (mean wind speed), , ,
ρb ρU 2b
µ (viscosity of air),
Ks M C
E (Young’s modulus), , 2
,
A (areas of roof), K T ρb
D (aerodynamic drag cable per unit length), EAC D
2 2
, ,
g (gravitational acceleration), ρU b ρU 2b
∆p (excess of internal over external pressure in zero wind), ∆p
ζ, , γ,
ζ (damping ration in vacou), ρU 2
VI (internal volume covered by roof), PI b3 γ PI
γ (ratio of specific heats for air), ,
ρ U VI ρ U 2
2
PI (absolute internal pressure).
They have got internal pressure (pi) and the mean force coefficient as function of wind speed that is
changed the deflection of the roof altering mean pressure distribution, (Fig.2.9 & 2.10) The
experimental method also resulted the non-dimensional parameter (∆p/ρU2) described the relationship
of an excess of internal pressure, density of air, and mean wind speed function.

,
From the conclusion drawn, added

mass effect is significant and may in
some case dominant for lightweight
membrane. Fabric membranes are
sensitive to wind tunnel noise and
thorough knowledge of the acoustic
environment in wind tunnel is
essential in interpreting the data. On
present roof, the deflections due to
Fig. 2.8. Stadium Detail by Irwin cs & Inc. fig.2.9-10 wind were significant.
Fig. 2.9. Mean force coefficient Fig. 2.10. Mean deflection at φ=900
From the experimental above can be described that is significant influence of wind pressure
distribution to the fabric membrane and the cable, which resulted the significant deflection also
vibration measurement.
Yasri, Marukawa, Katagiri, Katsumura, Tamura, and Watanabe (1999), was also performed
wind tunnel testing on cable suspended roof of long span structures in Japan. Since the dead load of a
long-span structure’s roof is relatively small, it is important to estimate wind-induced response to
structure. They built two different models that are catenary’s-shape as a sag roof and wave-shape as a
rise roof supported by cable, which the structures are combination between the cable and truss beam.

,
This the experiment method

considered, they developed the
distribution of the mean wind
pressure coefficient and fluctuating
wind pressure coefficient. They
utilized the Monte Carlo simulation
for producing wind pressure
simultaneously at multiple points.
Fig.2.11. Structure Layout
Fig.2.12.
Wind
Pressure
Distribution,
by Yasui, cs
included
Fig.2.11
Fluctuating wind pressure over the roof surface described of pi (t), (i=1,2, m) was a stationary
Gaussian process with a cross spectrum density function Sij (ω), (i, j =1, 2, m) and mean value is 0.
The fluctuating wind pressure can be estimated from:
1 N −1
 j 2πkn 
pind =
N
∑X
k =0
ik exp 
 N 
 (i = 1, 2, ..., m; n = 1, 2, ..., N ), j = − 1 1.11
where k is indicated the frequency and d is indicated an estimate value. Xk is an element of the
complex vector defined by
N
Xk = Hk ζ k 1.12
2∆t

,
 X 1k   H11k  ζ 1k 
X  H H 22 k  ζ 
 2k   21k   2k 
 .   . . .   . 
     
 .   . . .   . 
 .  N  . . .   . 
 =    
 X ik  2 ∆t  H i1k H i 2k . . . H iik  ζ ik 
 .   . . . .   . 
     
 .   . . . .   . 
 .   . . . .   . 
     
 X mk   H m1k H m2k . . . H mik . . . H mmk  ζ mk 
Hk is obtained by the LLT decomposing the cross spectrum density:

S(ωk) = Η(ωk) Η∗Τ(ωk) 1.13
  H 11 (ω k ) H 21 (ω k ) . . . H m 1 (ω k ) 
∗ ∗ ∗
 H 11 (ω k ) 0
 H (ω k ) H (ω k )   ∗

 21 22   H αα (ω k ) . . . H m∗ 1 (ω k ) 
 . . .   . 
= ×  
 . . .   . 
 . . .   . 
   
 H m 1 (ω k ) H m 2 (ω k ) . . . H mm (ω k )   0 (ω k ) 
∗
H mm
where ζ ik is the complex number defined by ζ ik = ζ ik + jη ik.

Here ζ ik and jη ik are mutually independent Gaussian probability variables. Using random variables
below:
E[ζ ik] = E[jη ik] = 0,
E[ζ2 ik] = E[jη2 ik] = 0.5.
The wind pressure ζ ik was obtained in terms of complex Fourier coefficient Xik , determined from
 i −1 
 X ik − ∑ H ijkζ jk 
 
ζ ik =  j =1 
H iik
1.14
They were drawn conclusion that the high sporadic negative pressure obtained in the wind tunnel
test to observe the wind pressure at the edge of the roof. The power spectrum of the fluctuating
wind pressure obtained from the simulation is in good agreement with the experimental done.
From the experimental above can be described that is significant vertical displacement occur effected
by wind load to the structure as well as resulted wind pressure distribution.
Marcelo Rocha, Sandro Cabral, and Jorge Riera (2000) performed experimental research on
wind tunnel testing as well as numerical methods, which is used Proper Orthogonal Decomposition
(POD) method and Monte Carlo simulation of the tenstar cable roof structure of the La Plata Stadium,

,
in La Plata, Argentina. In addition, the impressive of shape roof model presented to cover the
stadium, which is divided into two alternatives
model solution of
complete and partial
cover of the field.
(A)
From the experiment
conducted, they
evaluated the mean wind
pressure fluctuation, and
standards deviations of
the pressure field.
(B)
Fig. 2.13. La-Plata Stadium by Rocha cs, & included fig.2.14-15
The POD method explained vector of wind pressure time series measured in n given point of a
surface as p (t) = [p1 (t), p2 (t), pn (t)] and associated by µp = [µp, µp, µp]. Second statistical moments
of wind pressures in the form of a covariance matrix:
Cp = Sp Rp SpT, 1.17
Where
 σ1 0 1 ρ12 . . . ρ1n 
0 σ2   ρ 1 . . . ρ 2 n 
   21
 . . .   . . . . 
Sp =   , Rp =  
 . . .   . . . . 
 . . .   . . . . 
   
 0 0 . . . σ n   ρ n1 ρn2 . . . 1 
are the diagonal matrix of wind pressure standard deviations and the symmetric matrix of correlation
coefficient, respectively. Aware from the correlation coefficients, to define a zero time gap, that is,

,
Cp,ij=ρijσi σj = E {[pi (t) - µI][pj (t) - µj]} = E {pi (t) pj (t)} - µi µj 1.18
The correlation coefficient matrix can be subjected as Orthogonal Decomposition, which is

accomplished by solving eigenvalue-eigenvector:
Rpzj = λj zj 1.19
Where the n solutions (λj zj), j =1, 2, n. used to assemble the matrices
 λ1 0   z11 z12 . . . z1n 
   ρ
 0 λ2   21 z 22 . . . z 2 n 
  
. . .  , Zp =  . . . . 
Λp =  
 . . .   . . . . 
   .
 . . .  . . . 
 
   z n1 zn 2 . . . z nn 
 0 0 . . . λn 
Λp is diagonal matrix of the square roots of the eigenvalues; λj and Zp are the corresponding
orthonormal eigenvector, zj. Reconstitute of the correlation matrix as
Rp = (Zp Λp) (Zp Λp)T 1.20
The optional covariance matrix as
Cp = (Sp Zp Λp) (Sp Zp Λp)T 1.21
On the other hand, general derived equation of Monte Carlo simulation was also presented in this
research, which is similar to the previous research above. They drawn discussion by mean of
theoretical and practical example, which was depend on whether a global or a local structural
response to wind pressure loads required. The POD method presents a fast convergence rate for
global response, while for local response the effective correlation length of the pressure process
taken into consideration on Computational Dynamic Fluid (CFD).
Fig.2.15 Standard Deviation of wind pressure,

,
Fig. 2.14. Mean wind pressure, α=1800 α=1800

Ando, Ishii, Suzuki, Masuda, Saito, (1999), was also performed wind tunnel test on
construction of a double membrane air supported structure, which are consisted of cable suspended,
membranes roof and few steel part. Since lightweight of long span structures can be built in Japan
(1997), it is important to estimate wind-induced response to structure. They built a 1/500 scale model
to validate the design of “Ukigumo Dome”, which resembles a floating cloud. The main roof of the
dome is a cable reinforced double layer air-inflated as hybrid double-membrane air supported
structure (fig.2.16). They were conducted wind tunnel test with velocity pressure setting at q=
301.8kgf/m2, which is designed load of return period of 500 years in Kumamoto. From the scale
model, they obtained wind pressure coefficient around the roof, (fig.2.17). The coefficients of the
windward, leeward and central sides are determined to be –1.1, +0.15 and –0.4, respectively.
Fig. 2. 16 Hybrid double-layer system by Ando,cs Fig. 2.17. Wind pressure coefficient Distribution.
They were concluded that is the first building was constructed the movement roof with double
membrane air-supported structure. It is obvious that wind loading was very important influence to the
membrane structure since large area surface of roof exist and historical record of relatively high-
speed wind occurred.
Due to the cable-suspended structure is flexible, it is highly important to understand the
response to wind loading for this research. Any prediction about behavior of cable suspended roof
combined with membrane structure can be involved so that should be studied, in order to recognize
the distribution pressure of passing wind on these structures.
2.3 Fabric membrane Structures

,
For many years fabric membrane structures has been used for a main component building
structure. The roofing system would perhaps have used animal skin to form tents, which are
considered perfect example of an advance structure of a membrane roof with dominantly tensile
force. In between the tension members would have membrane attached or stretched over the
boundary surface fitted. (Prem Krisnha 1978, p.1). The earlier structures (tents) built is not yet have
improvement. It is because of the impermanent nature. The technology developed the fabric
membrane and new material involved so that they have begun to be perceived as architecture and
engineering structure.
Sophisticated construction technique and complexity of requirement would be introduced as
modern tensile membrane engineering system of portable as well as permanent building at the present
day. “Perhaps the most high-profile building to be erected in UK this century is the Millennium
Experience Dome,” which are using material cable, fabric membrane and several steel erections. The
dome is an understatement of 320 meters in diameter, over 100 meters to the top of the mast, and
more than 1000 meters around its circumference is using PTFE-coated fabric and galvanized cable.
Fig.2.18. Millennium Dome by Kronenburg, (A) (B)

The form of spherical tensioned fabric cap was taken by the enclosure. Tensioned steel cables
arranged radially on the surface of structure is supported the skin-membrane, supported and braced
from the columns by hanging and tie-down cables at 2 meter interval. (Kronenburg, 2000, p.13-14).
Portable architecture using membrane structures are rose that is not only due to increased
performance and longer lifetime but also because the adaptation of computer-aided design as well as
computer program package to support the design structure.
However, for the simple point, these structures are still designed to resist the basic loading
criteria as conventional building. The original dead load of these structure relatively small, however

,
the imposed live load and wind pressure much more significant to influence the structural design.
Wind pressure would be relatively difficult to generate on the building, which has complex
geometries. The shape of structure basically governed by the physical principles that are begins with
produced a stable structures with the membrane surface should have double curvature and defined
mathematically as a hyperbolic paraboloid. The geometry of the membrane is established through a
shape generation technique to ensure static equilibrium of the system. (Birdair Technical Info, 2001).
The relationship between basic loading system and generated geometry of membrane roof should be
involved in order to collect data loading on design structure.
The advantage and appeal of fabric structures are because the lightweight efficiency in long
span application and not easily constructed. The typical materials involved are PTFE (Teflon)-coated
fiberglass, silicone coated fiberglass and vinyl-coated polyester that are inherently waterproof and
require little maintenance. PTFE is chemically inert, resistant to moisture and microorganisms and
has low deterioration. There is no bending and shear stiffness of cable combined with membrane
occurred due to they rely on their form and internal pre-stress alone to perform the same function.
Since they depend only on internal tensile forces, there are relatively simple equation would be under
laid. (Shaeffer, 1996, ix).
“Designer often attracted to fabric structure are intrigued with the wide range of forms which
ca be built. Although the range of possible forms is extensive these are not ‘free-form’ structure.”
Conforming to the physical principals must be governed is because behavior as limited characteristic
of the material form. In tensile behavior, combining or weaving numerous linier tension components
generally makes membranes. That is mostly using cable suspended with the membranes structurally
and visually acts as tension surface. (Shaeffer, 1996, p.5.1-5.4).

,
Planar axial forces of membrane surface usually

resist loads. Applying a pressure load at any
point will tent to increase the tension in one
direction and decrease it in the opposite. This
will force the surface to deform until the axial
force of the surface balance the applied load.
Suction load will increase the membrane
Fig. 2.19 Membrane in tension by Shaeffer tension in other direction. (Figure 2.19)
Every point on a stable tension surface should be satisfied the axial equilibrium of:
∑ Fx = 0 , ∑ Fy = 0 and ∑ Fz = 0
Cone-like or hyperboloid surface are
generated when a membrane is stretched
between two vertically displaced
concentric boundaries. The similar size
and shape to the cooling tower form, or
may be significantly different must
supported tent forms to develop in order
Fig. 2.20 Hyperbolic surface of membrane to associate to the membrane structure.
Simple physical model can be seen in figure 2.20, which the range of viable forms and proportions is
significantly increased by the use of radial cable. Principle curvature generally follows meridional
lines and an opposite sense of curvature was set as perpendicular to the meridional lines.
The lightweight structure had been studied by Frei Otto (1967) that was mainly researched on
model studies of shape of air-supported structures. There are wires tied over the membrane represent
cable or net. The result of experimental research method is estimation of membrane stress that can be
made on measuring the principle radii of curvature. Tension support can be introduced in the form of
grid to reduce the radii of curvature of the membrane.
The fabric membrane structure as much like a thin sheet that is light and has flexible nature.
The wind load is dominantly affected to the whole of applying load on the structure so that is

,
necessary to gain the wind pressure acting to the structure. Kazakevitch, (1998) was performed the
requirement of experimental investigation in the wind tunnel of wind load on the membrane roof.
Fig. 2.21
The hangar structural scheme by Kazakevitch.
Fig. 2.22
Pressure distribution on the membrane roofing
surface (a) the stage of erection, β=0; ε=0.5%-
on upper surface, 2-the net values on the upper
and lower surfaces;(b), (c) The completed
stage (on the upper surface); 3,4 in section a;
3-β=900, ε=0.5%; 4-β=900 , ε=8%,etc.e by
Kazakevitch
The cylindrical membrane roof model at Riga Airport in Latvia determinate the wind pressure
distribution and wind flow visualization over the roof surface in wind tunnel testing. Method to
determine characteristic of natural dynamic of membrane system was described base on the complete
Vlascov equations. The roof for hangar developed in the form of a cylindrical membrane roof of 108
m span and 60 m wide. (see fig. 2.21)
The roof model was created on scale 1:250 and intended to determine wind pressure distribution
along the upper and lower surface. The integral aerodynamic coefficients were calculated by means
the integration over the appropriate surface:
X 1 1 −
C= = ∫
qS qS σ
p cos (n, x) d σ =
Si
∑ pi cos (n1, x) ∆σ i 1.22

,
By analogy
1 −
C = ∑ pi cos (ni , y )∆σ i 1.23
S i
1 −
C = ∑ pi cos (ni , z )∆σ i 1.24
S i
where S is the area of the horizontal projection of the model roofing surface. It was measured of pi
as the pressure mean aerodynamic coefficient at any point I, pi’ = pi/q defined as the net pressure,
and the dynamic wind pressure; q=ρV/2,ρ the air flow density, V the velocity of the undisturbed
flow, ∆σI the area of the element around point I, and ni the normal to the surface at point i. The result
of the experimental was obtained on the wind pressure distribution along the upper and lower roofing
surface. (see figure 2.22)
Wind tunnel tests have proven useful to achieve design relevancy. Many kinds of membrane
structures were also investigated to collect the relevant data. Irwin and Wardlaw, 1976 performed the
experiment using fabric membrane of 1420 denier Kevlar 49 and 100 denier Kevlar 29 in wind tunnel
testing that defined the independent of the elastic properties to the membrane (see figure 2.8-2.10).
The Montreal Stadium was completed in 1987 using a polyurethane and PVC-coated Kevlar fabric.
The details of full scale and model roof materials can be summarized in table below.
Table. 2.1 Full Scale Model
Fabric 1420 denier Kevlar 49 closely 100 denier Kevlar 29 woven as an open net
woven
Airtight Coating PVC on both side High density polyethylene sheet on

underside
Mass Kevlar 1.1 kg/m2, Coating 1.1 Kevlar 0.009 kg/m2, Coating 0.006 kg/m2
kg/m2
Adhesive 0.005 kg/m2, Total 0.02 kg/m2
Total 2.2 kg/m2
Approximate KT 16 MN/m 0.14 MN/m
Approximate KS/KT 6.2 x 10-4 20 x 10-4
The result of experiment affected the natural frequency, and deflections under static load. The
evidence released that the behavior of tensioned membrane in wind not sensitive to their elastic
properties and very little strain of the membrane deflection. In addition, added mass is very

,
significant effect on the lightweight membrane and very sensitive to the effect of acoustic
environment.
Wind tunnel testing completed by Ando, Ishii, Suzuki, Masuda, Saito, (1999) on a double
membrane air supported structure. The structural system involved is “Park Dome Kumamoto” which
is the main roof of the dome is a cable reinforced double layer air-inflated membrane. The double
membrane air supported structure is 107 m with conical trapezoide steel ring frame at the center
maintains the thickness and shape of the air-supported structure. The 48 cables run radially at the
upper and the lower regions between the ring frame and the exterior ring truss. The upper and lower
rings have diameters of 10.6 m and 36.6m, respectively, and the ring frame is 14 m high.
The membrane is PTFE
coated glass fiber fabric
covered those structure. The
result of the experimental
research on wind loading is
distribution of wind pressure
coefficient which they set the
velocity pressure at q = 301.8

Fig. 2.23 Structural section, Park Dome Kumamoto (1999)
kgf/m2.
The wind pressure coefficient of the roof is collected. (See figure 2.16-2.17, page 13). To gain a
better understanding of the behavior of these types of structure so that need more wind tunnel testing
should be advocated. This kind structures was the first building with double-membrane air-supported
structure, which is the original system applied as lightweight and built as a long span structure. That
is mean large areas membrane surface roof will invoked by mostly wind loading that is need more
investigation on every time want to build new structure. Thus, it will led the further study on wind
load induced on membrane structures by such as procedure of experimental or numerical methods.

,
2.4 Computational Fluid dynamic (CFD) for Wind Loading

Campbell (2000) on in Boundary & Support
Definition
SHAPE
his paper provided an overview (Form Finding)
Pattern Boundary
Definition
of the utilization of computing SHAPE
Architecture
Evaluation SHAPE
in the design and construction (Pattern Surface)
of tensile membrane structure. Prestress PATTERN

Evaluation
(Cutting Templates)
This paper pursued general Support Structure

Model
methodology in the design and Initial Element

ANALYSIS
Size
construction of tensile
membrane structure is Presstres
Shape
STRUCTURAL Element
Size
Evaluation
illustrated in figure 2.21. It can

be described from flow chart Erection/Stressing
Sequence Difinition
DESIGN
(Element Size)
Joint Design
Detailing
that is wind loading became Analysis
highly order demand to the

analysis design structure, so
Typically Non- Typically
automated automated
that will be regarded in all Process Process
process design.
Fig. 2.24.
General Approach Design Tensile Membrane Structure by
Campbell (2000)
A part from general approach design flowchart is may be prescribed boundary pre-stress to patterning
of shape of structure generation. It is belief that would be easier to generate a shape module due to the
ability of the digital computer as well as to analyze the system structure. It is highly recommended to
pursue CFD method become a part of approaching design to predict wind loading to the structure, it is
because the wind load basically very significant would applied mostly to those kind of structures. It is
connected closely to the geometry modeling in CFD code with kinds of the design structures to
develop related to fabric membrane.
For the first time, CFD introduced in aircraft industry and on aerodynamic industry related. In
ship design, CFD methods were mainly focused to integrate the geometry and analysis of ship. CFD
methods to be used in close combination with wind tunnel testing by Voogt (1990) to investigate

,
during development phase of Fokker 50 &100 project Aircraft prototype and to analyze candidate
shapes of airplane. The basis of CFD analysis can reduce significantly the number of wind tunnel
model test. Furthermore, the analysis of flow in a free flight environment cannot be obtained on wind
tunnel analysis. However, the combination of both methods is essential to reduce design cycle times
and the potential development risk. Any attempts to gain a better understanding of critical flow
phenomena using CFD methods may be extended predict wind behavior to fabric membrane
structures. “The aerodynamic design process is aimed to get a number of aerodynamic requirements
under certain geometric constraints. In the computational cycle a configuration is optimized for a set
of selected parameters at the design condition”. Results of the computational can be visualized on
graphic terminals, figure 2.25. In order to running the program, there are closely connected with CFD
is geometry modeling. CFD has been a vital element in the design of the Fokker 100 wing, which one
of example visual post-processing illustrated a changing isobar pattern on a wing. The relevant result
of research to this study is indication of pressures computed as illustrated in figure 2.26.
Fig. 2.25
Visual Post-processing, Voogt (1990)
Fig. 2.26 Stubwing and pressure measurement Voogt

(1990)
Prediction of wind effect on building surface was conducted by Mikkelsen and Livesey
(1995) with concern on comparison of computed result to wind tunnel test and full-scale
measurements. The research conducted evaluation on numerical K-ε model Kamaleon II, to predict
wind pressure on structure surface. The 3D domain of 0.6x0.6x0.6 m3 corresponded to cube of
0.05x0.05x0.05 m3 was generated on computer program. The pressure distribution was calculated on

,
different wind angle approached of 00, 50, 150, 250, 350, & 450, and one sample pressure coefficient
presented in figure 2.28
P − Po
Cp = 1.25
1 ρU 2
2 o
where Cp = pressure coefficient, P=local pressure, Po=reference pressure, ρ=air density and
Uo=free-stream velocity.
Fig. 2.27 calculation grid in a close

vicinity of the cube, Mikkelsen & Fig.2.28 Cp
Livesey (1995) value shown as isobar for an angle of 00
Mikkelsen & Livesey (1995)
The calculation was a steady-state, which the isothermal flow condition consisting of 45 x 39 x27
cells (see figure 2.27). The density was higher in the vicinity of the house and a particular cell
matched each pressure tap location in the full-scale model test. One example pressure distribution can
be seen in figure 2.28.
Comparison between full-scale and
numerically prediction can be
described in figure 2.29. The pressure
distribution Cp result indicated
closely match with the wind tunnel
test and either numerical prediction of
pressure distribution as well as the
drag coefficient indicated slightly
higher value than those by wind
tunnel experimental.
Fig. 2.29 Comparison between full-scale, model scale
and numerically predicted Cp for h/z0= 180

,
It is significant to pursue the literature of CFD in order to understand of how the data obtained
in the way of correlation to the real world condition. The attempt to qualify of wind-induced pressure
on building, place in extraordinary geometry is crucial so that need to under take suitable model
approach. One example research presented the global force acting on an obstacle to define the flow
field at the symmetry plane by Lakehal (1998).
Fig. 2.30 The computational grid in close Fig. 2.31 pressure coefficient distribution at the
vicinity of the obstacle, Lakehal (1998) sysmetry plane, Lakehal (1998)
He admitted research on the Kupka building with reduced in model scaled of 1:200 with a sharp
round-walled geometry provided by 1/10 building height. It can be seen in figure 2.30, the developed
mesh generation of the Kupka building model and one of example result of coefficient pressure
distribution can be seen in figure 2.31. Generating CFD codes on the model structure is used base on
Reynolds-average Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations and large-eddy simulation (LES). In this
research, the modeling app
roach based on solving RANS equations, using standard version of k-ε turbulence model adapted for
airflow simulation. The three dimensional steady-state flows are described by the Navier-Stoke
equations, which express mass and momentum conservation. Reynolds averaging procedure and the
eddy-viscosity concept, which obtained a system equation expressed nonorthogonal co-ordinate
system ξi = (ξ ,η , χ )
∂U m
= 0, m = 1, 2, 3 1.26
∂ξ m
∂   1 ∂ U iξ m  ∂ pβ im
+ Γ
(
 1 ∂U kξ j m  )
βi β k 
U m U i − Γ β j  = −
ξ
127
∂ξ m  ∂ξ ∂ ξ  ∂ξ 
 J i  m  J j 

,
where U is the contravariant velocity expressed in term of the covariant components U ξ by

∂ξ jp
Um= β ijU ξj and β ij the cofactor of in the Jacobian (J) of the transformation ξ i ⇒ ξ i p , which
∂ξi
reads
 ∂ξ mp 
 
 ∂ξ 
 ∂ξ p 
J =  m , m = 1, 2, 3, 1.28
 ∂η 
 ∂ξ p 
 m
 ∂χ 
p=p/ρ + 2/3k represents the increased pressure (p=pressure, ρ= fluid density and k = turbulent kinetic
energy), and Γ = v + vt the effective viscosity (laminar + turbulent). The eddy-viscosity is determined
Cµ k 2
according to the algebraic expression vt =
ε which involves the turbulent scalars (k) and its rate
of dissipation (ε). In k-ε model, the turbulent quantities k and ε are obtained from transport equations
and describing mean flow
∂   1 ∂φ m 
U mφ − Γφ  β j  = J ( Sφ+ − Sφ− ) , m=1,2,3

1.29
∂ξ m   J ∂ξ j 
φ stands for either k or ε, where the net source/ink part are given. For k and ε equations by (G-ε) and
(C1G –C2ε)ε/k, the diffusion coefficients Γφ by Γ/σφ. G represents the rate of production of turbulent
kinetic energy resulting from the interaction of the turbulent motions and mean flow.
v  ∂U ξ  ∂U ξ ∂U ξj n 
G = 12  i β nj  i β nj + β i  , m=1, 2, 3 1.30
J  ∂ξ n 
 ∂ξ n ∂ξ n 
The empirical constants are assigned the standard values, so that Cµ=0.09; C1=1.44; C2=1.92;
σk=1; and σε=1.3. Those are the basic formulation of Navier-Stokes applied to the model
turbulent in CFD. Numerically prediction pressure distribution using CFD indicated fairly well
performance pressure coefficient or non-dimensional data respected to the inflow wind profile. The
result of research is pressure coefficient distribution (Cp= (p-po)/1/2ρUB2 , where po = reference
pressure) on windward and leeward side of model which was compared between computational
method and the experimental result, (see fig. 2.32) and also the example of pressure coefficient
distribution can be seen in figure 2.31.

,
In their conclusion, the RANS equations predicted airflow features and induced loads on a three-
dimensional building-like model with complex boundaries. In the light of different results, the
numerical procedure can be used to simulate realistically pressure-induced effect of a turbulent flow
over a building. So that means, in this study, the behavior of wind load acting on the fabric membrane
structure hopefully could be predicted. The promising aspect of CFD procedure to further
investigation on wind behavior can be adapted.
In order to achieve successful application on model used the CFD, it needed concerning on
mesh and turbulence modeling. Regarding to the assessment, Kim and Boysan (1999), performed
turbulence modeling, which is determined the fidelity of computational on the environmental
application. Using CFD software FLUENT, they employing structured mesh for complex geometries
that is often made a very difficult of adequate mesh structure applied. However, unstructured meshes
have been generated over the typical building group using commercial preprocessors. The turbulence
models to be discussed based on Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equation and large eddy
simulation (LES) in lieu of increasingly important role it plays.

,
The issue of turbulence modeling of

computational simulation for environment
application presented, which was applied
environmental flow such as atmospheric
boundary layer to a smooth terrain and bluff
bodies. They tried to explore the principle
the needed of mean wind speed data and
atmospheric turbulence data to accumulate
accurately of presented atmospheric wind
Fig. 2.33 Unstructured hexahedral meshes around and its effects on building and structure.
typical building configuration, Kim & Boysan
(1999)
The complex model environmental such as topography around building, the flows of 3D, and the
flows encountered in urban areas have tried to resolve. (Fig.2.33) Using the commercial CFD
software FLUENT resulted prediction pressure and skin-friction distributions as ell as the periodic
vortex shedding in turbulence flow over a square cylinder which was compared with the k-ε
turbulence model on surface-mounted cube.
The numerical approach
predicted pressure
distribution on surface
structures, prediction of
flow over the curve,
production of turbulent
kinetic energy and to
predict periodic of vortex
shedding in turbulent
Fig. 2.34 Flow over the curved two-dimensional hill- predictions using
four different turbulence models, bottom left: pressure distribution and
flow.
bottom right; skin-friction distribution. Kim & Boysan (1999)
They also defined that is significant improve the accuracy of numerical solutions for turbulent flows
and the CFD demonstrated potential economical solver proposed for turbulent models. In their
conclusion, the major issue that determine successful application of CFD to building aerodynamics
that the unstructured mesh has a great potential to significantly save time and effort for mesh

,
generation. Large eddy simulation will play an increasingly more important role, especially in dealing
with turbulence modeling issue. In this study case, LES would be delighted to try in generating
unstructured mesh on membrane structure model. It is due to the LES shown more significantly
improve the accuracy of numerical solution for turbulent flows.
Muakami, (1997&1998) conducted research on CFD method, which the new trends in
turbulence models for Computational Wind Engineering (CWE) is presented. Since CWE is known as
a difficult problem to analyze of the flow around bluff body by CFD, he admitted research on current
status and future trends in computational wind engineering with some reviewing another research to
be compared and an overview of turbulence model applied in CWE-1997. One example from several
research is the basic shape of the rectangular cylinder or bluff body that used model rectangular
cylinder with D/B and H/D (B: breadth, H: height and D: depth). He performed research that belief
about analysis of bluff body flows by LES (Large Eddy Simulation) can predicted the flow around it
much more accurately than the k-ε model does. It can be seen in figure 2.36. In this term, a very
confident appreciation given, which is decided the LES method shows the best reproduction of
experimental data, next is the RSM (Reynolds Stress Model), and the k-ε model gives the poorest
result. “In the recent LES computations the conventional Smagorinsky SGS (subgrid scale) model has
replaced by the dynamic SGS model. The development of the dynamic SGS model is one of the most
significant improved in the world of CFD. The appearance of dynamic LES makes it possible to
predict the velocity and pressure field around a bluff body with higher accuracy.
Fig. 2.35 Distribution of pressure coefficient (Cp) on

1:1:0.5 building of conical vortex at the roof corner
Fig. 2.36 Conical vortex at the roof corner
predicted by revised model k-ε ( k-ε−φ model by predicted by LES, by Murakami, 1997.
Kawamoto, 1995

,
The new trends in LES were the improvement of a dynamic SGS model that was proposed recently
by Germano with paper “A dynamic subgrid scale eddy viscosity model. 1991” and revised by Lilly
“A proposed modification of the Gerrmano subgrid-scale closure method” 1992. These analytical
models considered under realistic condition that the CFD estimation could gain sufficient result on
wind-interaction problems. The standard Smagorinsky model (S model) has been widely used in the
computation of LES. A simple eddy-viscosity type assumption is used for modeling the SGS stress:
_ _
SGS stress τ ij =U iU j −U i U j , 1.30
Eddy-viscosity model in S model: τ ij − 13 δ ijτ kk = −2v SGS S ij 1.31
v SGS = (C S ∆ ) 2 S C S : 0.1 − 0.25 , 1.32
1  ∂u ∂uj 
S ij =  i + , 1.33
2  ∂x j ∂xi 

S = (2 S ij S ij )1 2 1.34
In the standard dynamic SGS model based on the s model (DS), C (=CS2) is determined. The
empirical model function fµ is required for damping vSGS in the area near the wall.
v SGS = (C S ∆ f µ ) 2 S 1.35
+
f µ =1 − exp(− x n / 25) 1.36
The dynamic mixed model (DM) 2was proposed by Zang, 1993 and Vreman, 1994 as a linear
combination of the DS model and the scale-similarity model revision . The basic DM model
equations are shown in Eqs.1. 32 and 1.33
τ ij − 13 δ ijτ kk = − 2v SGS S ij + Bij − 13 δ ij Bkk = −2C∆2 S S ij + Bij − 13 δ ij Bkk 1.37
Smagorinsky scale − similarity
Model mod el
Bij = u i u j − u i u j 1.38
In order to determine coefficient C in LES, the model of SGS stress τij and procedure for determining
coefficient C can be seen below.
∂ ui ∂ ui u j ∂ p ∂   ∂ ui ∂ u j  1.39
+ =− + − τ ij + v + 

∂xt ∂x j ∂xi ∂x j   ∂x j ∂xi 

,
(a) Base Model

• S model
τ ij − 13 δ ijτ kk = −2C∆2 S S ij 1.40
1  ∂u ∂uj 
S ij =  i + 
2  ∂x j ∂xi 

1.41
S = (2 S ij S ij )1 2 1.42
• Scale-similarity (Bardina) model
τ ij = Bij 1.43
Bij = u i u j − u i u j 1.44
• Filtered bardina model

τ ij = Lij + C ij + C B (u i − u i )(u j − u j ) 1.45
Lij = u i u j − u i u j 1.46
1.47
C ij = u i (u j − u j ) + (u i − u i )u j
• Mixed model
τ ij − 13 δ ijτ kk = − 2C∆2 S S ij + Bij − 13 δ ij Bkk 1.48
(b) Procedure for determining C ( = C S2 )
• tuning
optimizing CS according to flow characteristics based on numerical
experiment (standard S model; CS=0.1 (channel flow) ~ CS=0.25
(isotropic turbulence))
• dynamic procedure with double filtering
Germano identity
$ ij = Tij − τîj = u i u j − uˆ i uˆ j $ ij : Re soled stress 1.49
• Lilly’s least-square method (optimization of C at each point)
1 $ij M ij 1.50
C=− : DS mod el
2 M kl2
1 M ij ($ij − H ij )
C=− : DM mod el 1.51
2 M kl2
M ij = ∆ˆ 2 Sˆ Sîj − ∆ˆ 2 S Sij 1.52
ˆ ˆ
H ij = uîuˆ j − uî uˆ j − (ui u j − ui u j ) 1.53

,
• Ghosal’s localization model

[
C ( x) = ∫ K ( x, y )C ( y )dy + f ( x) ] 1.54
where [ ]+, denotes the positive part K and f are defined as functions of
α = 2∆ˆ 2 Sˆ Sˆ and β = 2 ∆ˆ 2 S S
ij ij ij ij 1.55
• Meneveau’s Lagrangian dynamic model

1 I LM
C ( x, t ) = − : LDS mod el 1.56
2 I MM
1 I LM − I HM
C ( x, t ) = − : LDM mod el
2 I MM 1.57
t
I LM = ∫ $ ij (t ' ) M ij (t ' )W (t − t ' )dt '
−∞ 1.58
t
I MM = ∫ M ij (t ) M ij (t )W (t − t )dt
' ' ' '
−∞ 1.59
t
I HM = ∫ M ij (t ' ) H ij (t ' )W (t − t ' )dt '
−∞
1.60
W(t-t’) : weighting function.
xi three component of spatial coordinate (I=1, 2, 3; streamwise, lateral, vertical (or spanwise))
f time-averaged value of f
S ij strain-rate tensor
 2 
 1  ∂ u i ∂ u j 
 
S scale of strain –rate  = + 
 2  ∂x j ∂xi 
 
 
ui three component of velocity vector
p pressure
Uo time-averaged value of u1 at the inflow boundary for the case of 2D square cylinder.
Cp instantaneous pressure coefficient Cp = ( p − < p o >) /( ρ U o2 / 2)
<po> reference static pressure
vt eddy viscosity
k turbulent energy, k = u i' u 'j / 2
ε dissipation rate of k
u i' u 'j Reynolds stress
The S model is so simple and well designed that is has been applied to many flow fields and has
attained great success. The conclusions are drawn that pointed at the advantages of dynamic LES over

,
the standard LES. It is very promising for accurately predicting the flow around a bluff body. Another
conclusion are the CWE applications reviewed that the difficulties in applying CFD to wind
engineering problem are caused by 1) large Reynolds number, 2) impinging at the front wall, 3) sharp
edges of the bluff body, 4) remaining effect of flow obstacle at outflow around a bluff body, etc. An
evaluation of problems is based of proper choice of turbulent particularly in CWE. The basis
measures for the selection and evaluation of turbulence model are 1) prediction accuracy and 2) CPU
time required. One disadvantage of using LES is that too much CPU time is required. Since that
happened rapid evolution of CPU hardware needed to overcome the restriction and application of
LES to CWE problems is realized in near future in widely.
Another research has represented by Tamura, Kawai, Kawamoto, Nozawa, Sakamoto and
Ohkuma, (1997) of numerical prediction of wind loading on buildings and structures using CFD
related to large eddy simulation (LES) and the k-ε model for turbulent flows. In AIJ (Architectural
Institute of Japan ) concerned on model of a low rise building with (breadth: depth: height = 1:1:0.5)
have been computed by a member of working group measured the flows and the pressure around it. A
half cube on a flat plate was adopted as a computational model of a low-rise building. (Fig.2.37)
Regarding to the current status of CFD
technology in wind engineering, they
submitted a questionnaire to the wind
and structural engineers in research
institutes and private companies that
they obtained conclusion of the CFD
technique is widely
Fig.2.37 Computational model of the AIJ project by Tamura,cs.

,
used for application in wind engineering,

especially environmental problems and
structural engineers are planning to use
the CFD technique for wind-load
estimations. In this research, one of
testing is concerned to the sub grid-scale
model of LES.
Fig 2.38 by Tamura,cs
One of the example case

is adopted the standard
Smagorinsky model and
another one is adopted the
dynamic SGS model.
Fig 2.39 by Tamura,cs
The result of the two LES cases has not deviated from each other, however they shown a different
result in the space-time cross-correlation of fluctuating pressure on the roof.(Fig.2.38 and 2.39). The
conclusion drawn that in the case of LES, the numerical scheme has an important role for the
computed result so that CFD technique could have reliability to predict wind loading on building and
structures from view points of numerical accuracy and computational costs.
Su, Tang, & Fu (1997) were conducted research that analyzed fluid flow and thermal
performance of a dry-cooling tower under cross wind condition. Numerical simulation using finite
element volume (FVM) is 3-D structure shape generated on NSRT (Numerical Simulation in
Turbulence Research) software, which has been developed by them of CFD method. The Heler’
cooling tower model invoked cross wind that resulted turbulence flow around and pressure contour. It
is concerned to the temperature distribution, which air is played role over the tower. However, small
portion of wind behavior to the surface of cooling tower have been presented. The horizontal
crosswind acting to the tower affected that has resulted contour pressure distribution. It can be seen in
figure 2.42.

,
Fig. 2.40 Heler-type dry-cooling

tower, by Su,cs. Fig. 2.41 Computational region and coordinate system,
by Su, cs.
The contours of pressure in the

horizontal plane Z=9m indicated
lower pressure due to the
pressure close to the side surface
of the tower and because of the
large velocity of air.
Fig. 2.42 Contour of pressure in the horizontal plane (Z=9m,
cross wind speed of 5 m/s), by Su, cs.
The results were compared with the respective experiment and the agreement is satisfactory. It is
more concerned to the heat transfer on tower. Although the research is done for the heat transfer,
however it can gave inspiration of general type of dry cooling tower model and has correlation to the
shape of the membrane structure model.
2.5 Wind Tunnel Test

A theoretical calculation of the wind load on a structure is quite difficult, which were the
fundamental equations generated on the mechanics of airflow are very complicated and so many
parameters in boundary conditions for the system of equations. Even nowadays, since the evolutions
of advanced computer introduced, there are very few cases can be obtained on numerical calculations
of wind loads on structures in turbulent flow. An actual and most accurate measurement for
determining wind loads will be on full-scale structures that is belief impossible in practice. So the
most appropriate method for that is using model tests in a wind tunnel. (Dyrbye, & Hansen, 1997, p.
177)

,
“The purpose of wind tunnel tests is to provide designers with information on local pattern,
wind loads, and wind-induced structural vibration having an accuracy far exceeding that can be
obtained from predictions based on other less expensive means such as theory, numerical analysis,
expert judgment (consulting), and so on” (Liu, 1991, p.147). The use of wind tunnel tests steadily
increased to improve design on many kind of structures shape. Due to the distributions of wind
pressure and flow pattern around the structures may not be given by building code and standard as
well as from any other source, so that the wind tunnel was the only way to generate the information.
The wind tunnel test may be considered only use low-speed wind tunnels because it makes
possible use model that can be prepared early in design cycles and to minimize cost. To gain a better
understanding of wind loading on two model structures such as sphere/dome and cooling tower
model, there are some references could be involved. Distribution of local mean pressure coefficient
on circular cylinder and hyperbolic cooling tower represented on wind engineering by Liu, 1991,
p.92-97, that explaining about the similarity of pressure distribution around both the structures later.
The average value derived is the data from several studies (full scale measurement) described in
ASCE (1987).
As the basic consideration of wind force, that is defined a stream of air moving at velocity V
exerts a force q per unit area, where q is dynamic head of air expressed below:
q = 12 ρ V 2 . 1.61
The total pressure remains constant at all the points that is stated by Bernoulli’s equation of
2 2
p1 + 12 ρ V1 = p2 + 12 ρ V2 1.62
where p1, p2 are the static pressures at two points in the air stream, ρ is the air density, and V1, V2 are
the corresponding air velocities. (Sachs, 1978, p. 2)
The flow pattern of incompressible flow around circular cylinder perpendicular to the flow
depend on the Reynolds number that is expressed as
Re = ρ VD/µ 1.63
where ρ is the density of the fluid, V is the velocity of the fluid relative to the cylinder, D is the
cylinder diameter, and µ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid. Local mean pressure coefficient can be
derived by the pressure p at an arbitrary point on a structure in non-dimensional as follows:
p
Cp = 1 2
1.64
2
ρ V

,
Where Cp is the dimensionless pressure (pressure coefficient). The pressure p is measured above
ambient pressure. The velocity is that at a reference height, and ρ is the density of air. To understand
the pressure fluctuation at various parts of a building, the good correlation of pressure occurred
between windward external and the internal pressure produced by a windward opening. The pressure
fluctuations on a building caused by free stream turbulence carried in approaching and the signature
turbulence by the structure itself.
The theory said that the building encounters a slowly varying large eddy in the wind, the flow
around the building at any time t regarded quasi-steady. In this term, the pressure p at any location
varies expressed:
ρ V 2 (t )
p (t ) = Cp 1.65
2
Where p (t) is pressure at time t and V (t) is the free-stream velocity at t. (Liu, 1991, p.72-91.)
2.5.1 Wind Tunnel Techniques

Wind tunnel test on a structural model are needed when the full-scale structure difficult to
analyses. The use of wind tunnels is to determine the response of a structure to wind forces and to
ascertain the pattern of wind flow to leeward of a structure. Investigation is carried out on the eddy
formation behind bluff bodies to find the frequency and strength of oscillatory forces; on the structure
of a turbulent air-stream, and on the simulation of natural boundary layer effect.
In general the wind tunnel test developed for aircraft work that is also suitable for
structural model testing. Basically, two types of wind tunnel known that are open jet and closed
jet. In the open jet tunnel the working section, where the model situated, has no side walls so that
the air-stream is spilled out by model, and the force and pressure reading are artificially low. The
closed jet tunnel has sided wall, constraint the air flow past the model, so that forces and pressure
are artificially high. Measurements are made by conventional instrumentation, such as force and
moment balances and pressure manometers and the stiffness and damping of flexible structures is
either simulated in the model or by mounting a rigid model on springs with eddy-current
damping. (Peter Sachs, 1978, p. 95)
Guidelines for wind tunnel experiment (Barlow, Rae, & Alan Pope, 1999, p. 460-462) can be
described that is a rather commonsense listing of requirement for initiating and executing a successful

,
aerodynamic experiment as the following step below. It was included block diagram adapted from
AGRADAR 3043 in figure 2.43.
1. Clearly state the problem being addressed and define the purpose of the experiment. A clear
statement of the problem being addressed will often critical in obtaining efficient application
of their professional knowledge and skills or in avoiding a serious misunderstanding about
what persons involved in the planning and execution of the experiment in sufficient time so
that they can be mentally and physically prepared. The expected result from an experiment
must have associated expected accuracy and precision that are the minimum goals in order
that the objectives can be met. These accuracy and precision requirements should be a part of
the problem statement. Maximum advantage must be taken of results from previous
experiments, theories, and computations, as they are available in the professional literature or
from corporate records.
D e f in e d P u rp o s e s o f E x p e rim e n t & R e q u ire d A c c u r a c ie s o f th e R e s u lts
D e s ig n th e E x p e rim e n t
-R e q u ire d o u tp u t p a ra m e te r s - A c c u ra c ie s r e q u ir e d to m e e t n e e d s
No -M e th o d s to e v a lu a te u n c e rta in ty - M o d e l c o n fig u ra tio n
-T e st m e th o d s - M e a s u r e m e n t re q u ir e d
-I n s tr u m e n ta tio n n e e d s - C o r re c tio n s r e q u ir e d a n d m e th o d s
E n u m e r a te e r ro r s o u r c e s a n d e s tim a te
e f fe c ts o f u n c e r ta iin tie s o n re s u lts
Y es
C an
No R e s u lts
Im p ro v e m e n ts
be m ade? A c c e p ta b le ?
No Y es
S to p P ro c e e d w ith
s e a r c h f o r A lte r n a tiv e P r e p a r a tio n s
to th is te s t!
S ta r t te s t a n d
m o n ito r d a ta
No M easu rem en t No R e s u lts

P ro b le m ? A c c e p ta b le ?
Y es Y es
S o lv e C o n tin u e
P ro b le m T est
D o c u m e n t O u tc o m e
I n c lu d e f in a l e v a lu a tio n o f Y es P u rp o se
u n c e rta in ty w ith ra n d o m a n d A c h ie v e d ?
s y s te m a tic c o n trib u tio n s
id e n tif ie d a n d q u a n tifie d .
Fig. 2.43 Experimental planning and execution process diagram.
2. Identify the outcomes needed, including the ranges of values of parameters that will provide
the information to resolve the problem. This will imply a range of operating states and

,
configuration geometries. There will imply an accuracies and precisions associated with each
variable or parameter that should be identified.
3. Identify feasible model provisions and compatible facilities. This will require conceptual and
preliminary design of the models and fixtures. It will require identifying any wind tunnel
boundary corrections to be applied along with tare, interference, and other data corrections. It
will require assessment of the impact of these choices individually and in sum on the accuracy
and precision of the outputs.
4. Prepare run schedules and configuration change implications. Embedded in these decisions
will be the degree to which replication, randomization, and blocking can contribute to the
enrichment of the data to be obtained.
Compare the resources needed and resources available. Iterate step 1-4 until a match is
obtained.
Prepare a clear guide for the conduct of the experiment. Make sure all persons involved
understand the required actions procedures. Make sure all persons, materials, models,
instrumentation, and software will be available at the time and place for executing the
experiment.
5. Initiate the experiment. Provide for monitoring of all processes and data gathering. Include
process evaluation of achieved accuracies and precisions of measurements.
6. Conduct data analyses to provide quantitative evaluation of the achieved accuracies and
precisions. This information should be provided to the aerodynamicists and other project
personnel as a part of data package so that the product decisions can include appropriate
consideration of outcome uncertainties.
AGRAD AR 3043 contains an extensive example of an application to forces and pressure test that the
data flow diagram included in figure 2.44.

,
Experimental Aerodydnamic Coefficient
Model Deformation
Corrections
Boundary & Support

Corrections
Flow Angle
Calibrations
Math Model Buoyancy
Tares
Prior Data
Data Acquisition
Balance
Encoders
Temperature Sensors
System(s)
Pressure Reference
Other Transducers
Model Pressure
Angle Sensors
Temperature
Positioning
Inertial
Forces
Forces
Model
Systems
Wind Tunnel Environment
Fig. 2.44 Representative data flow.
There will very useful for a planning process an experiment with emphasis on the inclusion of
uncertainty evaluation.
The model would be developed in wind tunnel usually of ideal as small as possible, but there
are obvious because of practical limitation. These are not always due to the difficulty of simulating
fine detail such as no exactly sharp edges on our modeling. In practice, the model size is determined
by sensitivity of the balance in force and moment measurements, and by the size of pressure tubing
and it’s positioning in pressure test. For the flexible models the size is determined by comparative
mechanical properties of the model and full-size materials. (Peter Sachs, 1978, p. 105)
Uematsu, Yamada, Inoue, and Hongo, (1997) performed a different type of model testing
with the intention on wind-induced dynamic behavior to a rigidly jointed single–layer lattice
dome with a long span. The dynamic response of nine latticed domes with a span of 120 m was
analyzed in the time domain. They concerned the experimental method of characteristic of
fluctuating wind pressure on domes and the mean pressure distribution as well as wind pressure
coefficient (Cp & C’p). This type of structure has seldom been used due to many unsolved
problem regarding the structural design and the wind-induced vibration is one of those problems.

,
Since such a single-layer dome is a long span, the dynamic changes should be considered in the
wind resistant. It is very different characteristic of material used from the study of fabric
membrane structure, where the fabric membrane is usually light, flexible and tends to deflect and
oscillate under turbulent wind force. The geometry of the wind tunnel models is schematically
illustrated in figure 2.45 and one of example result of pressure distribution can be seen in figure
2.46.
Fig. 2.45 Dome geometry and Fig. 2.46 Distributions of the mean and rms pressure coefficient Cp
coordinate system, by Uematsu. and C’p H/D =1/4, by Uematsu.
They drawn conclusions of research, which the preset results, may give a reasonable basis for
evaluation the dynamic response to the dome shape. The result of them can be used as a reference
for further research of dome/sphere shape model structure. It very grateful to perusing the
literature related to the wind loading with wind tunnel studies to collect information data
experimental from the real structural modeled. However, in order to simplified, validation,
comparison and many considerations that is important to pursue model experimental using
computer program simulation.
Letchford and Sarkar, (2000) performed wind tunnel test on rough and smooth parabolic
domes, which simultaneous pressure measurement involved simulation atmospheric boundary
layer flow. Mean and fluctuation pressure distribution have compared with earlier studies for
similar shape and Reynolds number. The previous wind tunnel studies have undertaken by
Maher’s classical study, Ogawa, and Taylor. The differences between them is that Ogawa and
Taylor were presented measurement of fluctuating pressures and Taylor was the only one
presented contour maps of maximum and minimum point pressure for hemispheres and truncated

,
spheres. A complication of wind tunnel model studies of these types of structures is because the
curved surface, which leads to Reynolds number effects.
DU
Reynolds numbers defined as ρ where ρ and µ are fluid properties, D is the base diameter
µ
and U is the mean velocity at the top of model height. The Reynolds numbers ware used in the
range of each in dealt with Maher used R in the range of 6 x 105- 18x 105, Taylor dealt with R in
the range from 1x105 to 3 x 105, and Ogawa also investigated a range of turbulent intensities with
Reynolds numbers ranging from 1.2 x 105 to 2.1 x 105. The wind tunnel used is closed circuit, 1.8
m wide with a ceiling adjustable to ~1.8m. There is an upstream fetch of approximately 15m for
developing appropriate simulations of the earth’s atmospheric boundary layers. A model dome
was constructed with a base diameter (D) of 480 mm and height (h) of 150mm. The research was
estimated pressure coefficient, which all pressure stated as non-dimensionalized by the mean
dynamic pressure (1/2ρU2) at the top of the dome. ∆p is the instantaneous pressure difference
between the surface pressure and a reference pressure in the wind tunnel.
Fig. 2.47 Tapping arrangement and wind Fig. 2.48 Comparison of mean pressure coefficient
direction definition for single dome test, by along centerline of a smooth dome, by Letchford,cs
Letchford,cs
They were governed equation as:

∆p
Cp = 1 Mean pressure coefficient, 1.66
2
ρU 2
∆p
Cprms = 1 rms Standard deviation pressure coefficient, 1.67
2
ρU 2
∆pˆ
Cˆ p = 1 Mean peak maximum pressure coefficient, 1.68
2
ρU 2

,
( (
∆p
Cp = 1 Mean peak minimum pressure coefficient, 1.69
2
ρU 2
Uˆ
G= 3 Gust velocity ratio 1.70
U1 h
The corresponding coefficients are

Cˆ p
C pˆ = Mean maximum pseudo-steady pressure coefficient, 1.71
G2
(
( Cp
Cp = Mean minimum pseudo-steady pressure coefficient. 1.72
G2
They specified conclusion that mean and fluctuating pressure distributions are well approximated
by a spherical dome of the same height to diameter ratio. The pressure distributions were
independent of Reynolds number in the range 2.3 x 105-4.6 x 105 defined by velocity at top of
dome and base diameter. In this study, hemisphere is one of the structural geometry on fabric
membrane structures under wind force acting investigated. Regarding to the previous research,
the result can be referenced to further study to the similar shape geometry with variation on
material structure involved.
Published data by Maher’s classical study of the dome surface can be described in
Chapter 4, which will be compared with the CFD result. Those tables and diagrams involved are
based on the work of Maher in 1965 and some by Blessmann in 1971, both of the result of them
that arrived in general conclusions. Mean and fluctuation pressure distribution will have
compared with those earlier studies.
2.5.2 Small Wind Tunnel

Regarding the impression of useful the large wind tunnel with a large jet and more speed, the
smaller wind tunnel might be considered in order to minimize cost as the fundamental advantages
with the economically in operation. Small tunnel is much less in cost to build and less run as well as
carried out the smaller model generated and time consuming.
“The key to successful experiments made in a small tunnel is to have a clear understanding of
the likely role of Reynolds number on the objects of the experiments. That is a matter of whether the
relevant effect of Reynolds number in small wind tunnel.” There are not exactly true, that has no
effect of Reynolds number on such cases. However, small wind tunnel is often used for instruction in

,
the methods of experimentation and the result has done well. “Pressure distribution measurement on
airfoils can be instructive even at relatively low Reynolds numbers. For a given airfoil shape the
distribution does not change drastically with Reynolds numbers so long as angle of attack is well
below stall. Many experiment concerning wind tunnel wall corrections are suitable for small tunnel.
These tend to be little affected by Reynolds numbers”. (Barlow, Rae, & Alan Pope, 1999, p. 665).
2.6 Conclusion
“The quantitative analysis of the behavior of fabric structures under severe loadings, has
developed to the point where they can now, be engineered in every way to the same performance
criteria as a permanent structure” (Russell, 2000). More specific research need for the fabric
membrane structure, which is considered the structure as an integrated whole without analyzed in
separately structural components. By applied CFD methods and subjecting scale model of fabric
membrane structure model to wind loading simulation, a more understanding of the behavioral of
them will be pursued.

,
Chapter 3 Numerical Methods

3.1 Introduction
Numerical study was investigated wind loading on the fabric membrane structure that
mostly occurred on roof surface. Using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods,
prediction and evaluation of wind loads impinging to the membrane structure is being assessed
with concerned on developing models structure.
The CFD can solve some problem in which allow the immediate solution of the flow field
without advancing in time and space. High-speed digital computer instrumentation needed in
order to advance the practical simulation. Some computers package contributions also required
for complex problem might be developed. In this case, some programme computer package can
be involved since they can be associated to the main program solver. Since the latest role of CFD
in engineering, prediction problem became in confident to generate in three-dimensional fluid
dynamics. The simple and the complex model immediately can be identified using the computer
package. One of them is AUTOCAD package that possibly can develop the initial model
generation. The reason this package involved is because the availability and the handling ability
on it in order to maximise productivity in CFD.
In term of CFD code, there are three components of the CFD codes have been used are
GAMBIT as pre-processor programme and FLUENT as a programme solver. The post-processor
is GSVIEW of postscript-based generation to translate the dynamic result display of model
developed. Those are mostly governed by the finite element method, which have been translated
into a computational programme, particularly on fluid dynamic.
Such as the principle methods, understanding of how the computational simulation work
is significant in which the theory involved, including the theory of finite element methods as the
basic of computational fluid dynamic developed.
3.2 Finite Element Theory and CFD Method Reviews
Computational Fluid Dynamics is the analysis of systems, which are fluid flow and other
associated phenomena involved in computer-based simulation. The technique of this is applications
of finite element methods for fluids where the wide range application area copes and very powerful
pursued.

,
Three dimensional or solid elements considered is useful for the stress analysis of general three-
dimensional bodies that require more-precise analysis than is possible through two dimensional or
axisymmetric analyses. The basic three-dimensional element is tetrahedron, which is used in the
development of the shape function, stiffness matrix and force matrices in term of a global coordinate
system. Referencing the theory of basic development on three dimensional, Finite Element published
by Logan (1986) derived to consider the three dimensional infinitesimal element in Cartesian
coordinate with dimensions dx, dy, & dz, and normal and shear stress.
Normal stress are perpendicular to
σ the faces of the element, and are

presented by σ x , σ y , and σ z . Shear
τ
τ stress act in the faces (planes) of
τ
τ τ the element, and are presented
τ σ by τ xy , τ yz , τ zx and etc. The
σ
moment equilibrium of element on
Appendix 2 are given by
Fig.3.1 Three-dimensional stress on an element, by Logan
τ xy =τ yx , τ yz =τ zy τ zx =τ xz 2.1
The element strain/displacement relationship are obtained on Appendix 2 are given by

∂u ∂v ∂w
εx = ,εy = εz = 2.2
∂x ∂y ∂z
where u, v, and w are displacement associate with the x, y, and z directions. The shear strain γ are
given by
∂u ∂v ∂v ∂w ∂w ∂u
γ xy = + = γ yx , γ yz = + = γ zy , γ zx = + = γ xz 2.3
∂y ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂x ∂z
where, only three independent shear strains exist. Representing the stress and strains by column
matrices as

,
σ x  ε x 
σ  ε 
 y  y
σ z  ε z 
{σ } =   , {ε } =   2.4
τ xy  γ xy 
   
τ yz  γ yz 
τ zx  γ zx 
The stress/strain relationship for an isotropic material are given by
{σ } = [D ]{ε } 2.5
where {σ} and {ε} are defined by Eq. 2.4 and the constitutive matrix [D]is given by
 1− v v v 0 0 0 
 1− v v 0 0 0 

 1− v 0 0 0 
 
 1 − 2v
[D] = E 0 0  2.6
(1 + v) (1 − 2v)  2 

1 − 2v
 0 
 2 
 1 − 2v 
 Symmetry 
 2 
In this study, developing the tetrahedral element is focused that it is because in CFD method, the
model and the domain approached by tetrahedral discretization. Tetrahedral element considered is
shown in figure 3.2 with corner nodes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
u1 
v 
 1 
 w1 
 
.  2.7
{d } =  . 
 
. 
u 
 4
v4 
 
Fig. 3.2 Tetrahedral solid element, by Logan  w4 
There is three degree of freedom per node, or twelve total degree of freedom per element. For a
compatible displacement field, the element displacement functions u, v, and w must be linear along

,
each edge because only two points (the corner nodes) exist along each edge and the functions must be
linear in each plane side of the tetrahedron. The linear displacement function as
u(x, y, z) = a1 + a2x + a3y + a4z 2.8
v(x, y, z) = a5 + a6x + a7y + a8z 2.9
w(x, y, z) = a9 + a10x + a11y + a13z 2.10
Skipping the straightforward but tedious detail, would be obtain

1
u ( x, y , z ) = {(α 1 + β 1 x + γ 1 y + δ 1 z )u1 + (α 2 + β 2 x + γ 2 y + δ 2 z )u 2
6V 2.11
(α 3 + β 3 x + γ 3 y + δ 3 z )u 3 + (α 4 + β 4 x + γ 4 y + δ 4 z )u 4 }
where 6V is obtained by evaluating the determinant

1 x1 y1 z1 
1 x 2 y 2 z 2 
6V =  2.12
1 x3 y 3 z 3 
 
1 x4 y4 z4 
and V represents the volume of the tetrahedron. The coefficients αi, βi, γi, and δi (I=1, 2, 3, 4) in Eq.
(2.11) are given by
 x2 y 2 z 2   1 y2 z2   1 x2 z 2  1 x2 y 2 
α 1 =  x3 y 3 z 3  β 1 = −  1 y 3 z 3  γ 1 =  1 x3 z 3  δ 1 = −  1
      x3 y 3  2.13
 x 4 y 4 z 4   1 y 4 z 4   1 x 4 z 4   1 x 4 y 4 
and
 x1 y1 z1   1 y1 z1   1 x1 z1  1 x1 y1 
α 2 = −  x3 y3 z 3  β 2 =  1 y 3 z 3  γ 2 = −  1 x3 z 3  δ 2 =  1
      x3 y 3  2.14
 x 4 y 4 z 4   1 y 4 z 4   1 x 4 z 4   1 x 4 y 4 
and
 x1 y1 z1   1 y1 z1   1 x1 z1  1 x1 y1 
α 3 =  x 2 y 2 z 2  β 3 = −  1 y 2 z 2  γ 3 =  1 x 2 z 2  δ 3 = −  1
      x 2 y 2  2.15
 x 4 y 4 z 4   1 y 4 z 4   1 x 4 z 4   1 x 4 y 4 
and

,
 x1 y1 z1   1 y1 z1   1 x1 z1  1 x1 y1 
 
α 4 = −  x 2 y 2 z 2  β 4 =  1 y 2 z 2  γ 4 =  1 x 2 z 2  δ 4 = −  1
    x 2 y 2  2.16
 x3 y3 z 3   1 y 3 z 3   1 x3 z 3   1 x3 y 3 
Expressions for v and w are obtained by simply substituting vi’s for all ui’s and then
wi’s for all ui’s in Eq. 2.11. The displacement expression for u given by Eq. 2.11, with similar
expressions for v and w, can be written equivalently in expanded form in term of the shape functions
and unknown nodal displacements as
u1 
v 
 1 
w1 
 
u   N 1 0 0 N2 0 0 N3 0 0 N4 0 0  . 
    
v  =  0 N 1 0 0 N2 0 0 N3 0 0 N4 0   .  2.17
 w  0 0 N 0 0 N2 0 0 N4 0 0 N 4   . 
   1
 
u 4 
 
v 4 
w4 
where the shape functions are given by

(α 1 + β 1 x + γ 1 y + δ 1 z ) (α 2 + β 2 x + γ 2 y + δ 2 z )
N1 = N2 =
6V 6V
(α 3 + β 3 x + γ 3 y + δ 3 z ) (α + β 4 x + γ 4 y + δ 4 z )
N3 = N4 = 4 2.18
6V 6V
The element strains for the three-dimensional stress state are given by
ε x   ∂x 
∂u
ε  ∂v  
  y  ∂ y 

ε x   ∂z ∂ w 

{ε } =   =  ∂u ∂v  2.19
γ xy   ∂y + ∂x 
γ   ∂v + ∂w 
 yz   ∂z ∂y 
γ zx   ∂∂wx + ∂∂uz 
Using Eq. (2.17) in Eq. (2.19), would obtained
{ε } = [B]{d } 2.20

,
where
[B] = [B1 B 2 B 3 B 4 ] 2.21
The sub matrix B1 in Eq. 2.21 is defined by
 N 1, x 0 0 
 
0 N 1, y 0 
0 0 N 1, x 
B1 =   2.22
 N 1, y N 1, x 0 
 
0 N 1, z N 1, y 
N 0 N 1, x 
 1, z
Sub matrices B 2 , B 3 and B 4 are defined by simply indexing the subscript in Eq.2.22 from 1 to 2, 3,
and 4, respectively. Substituting the shape functions from Eq. 2.18 into 2.22, B1 is expressed as
 β1 0 0 
0 γ1 0 

1 0 0 δ1 
B1 =   2.23
6V γ 1 β1 0 
0 δ1 γ1 
 
δ 1 0 β 1 
with similar expressions for B 2 , B 3 and B 4 . The element stresses are related to the element strains by
{σ }= [D]{ε } 2.24
where the constitutive matrix for an elastic material is given by Eq. 2.23
The element stiffness matrix is given by

[k ]= ∫∫∫[B]T [D][B]dV 2.25
v
Since both matrices [B] and [D] are constant for the simple tetrahedral element, Eq.2.25 can be
simplified to
[k ]= [B]T [D][B]V 2.26
where, V is the volume of the element. The element stiffness matrix is order of 12 x 12.
The element body force matrix is given by

,
[ fb]= ∫∫∫[N ]T {X }dV 2.27

v
where [N] is given by the 3 x 12 matrix in Eq. 2.17, and

X b 
{X }= Yb  2.28
Z 
 b
For constant body forces, the nodal components of the total resultant body forces can be distributed to
the nodes in four equal parts. The surface forces are given by
 px 
 
[ fs]= ∫∫ [N ] T
evaluated on  p y  2.29
 
surface1, 2 , 3
s
 pz 
where px, py, and pz are the x, y, and z component, respectively, of p. Simplifying and integrating Eq.
2.29 that can be shown as
 px 
p 
 y
 pz 
 
 px 
p 
 y
 pz 
{ f s } = S123
3   2.30
 px 
p 
 y
 pz 
 
0 
0 
 
0 
where S123 is the area of the surface associated with nodes 1, 2, and 3.
The formulation of tetrahedral element review is concerned to the developing finite element
volume related to the CFD methods. “The cornerstone of computational fluid dynamics is the
fundamental governing equations of fluid dynamics-the continuity, momentum and energy
equations”. Anderson (1996). The basic equations of fluid motion are always to follow the philosophy
of:

,
• Appropriate fundamental physical principle from the law physics, such as

a. Mass is conserved.
b. F=ma (Newton’s 2nd law)
c. Energy is conserved.
• Applied the physical principle to the suitable model of the flow.
• To extract the mathematical equations which embody such physical principles.

The physical meaning of substantial derivative is important to establish a common notation in
aerodynamics development.
3.2.1 The CFD Code

From the reference “An Introduction to CFD -The Finite Volume Method” by Versteeg &
Malalasekera, (1995), CFD codes and formulations are derived. CFD codes are structured around
the numerical algorithms that can solve fluid flow problems. The CFD code contained three main
elements that are: 1) a pre-processor, 2) a solver and 3) a post-processor. Brief examine the
function of each of these elements derived:
1. Pre-processor
Pre-processing consist of the input of a flow problem to a CFD program by means of an operator-
friendly interface and the subsequent transformation of this input into a form suitable for use by
the solver. The user activities at the pre-processing stage involved
• Definition of the geometry of the region of interest: the computational domain.

• Grid generation –the sub-division of the domain into a number of smaller, non-overlapping
sub-domains: a grid (or mesh) of cells (or control volumes or element)
• Selection of the physical and chemical phenomena that need to be modelled.
• Definition of fluid properties.
• Specification of appropriate boundary conditions at cells, which coincide with or touch the
domain boundary.
The solution to a flow problem (velocity, pressure, temperature etc) is defined at nodes inside each
cell. The accuracy of a CFD solution is governed by the number of cells in the grid, which is
fineness of the grid generation, the more accurate result gain. It is dependent how good the
computer hardware related to the iteration time assumption.
At present it is still up to the skills of the CFD user to design a grid that is a suitable
compromise between desired accuracy and solution cost. In order to maximise productivity of
CFD personnel all major codes now include their own CAD-style interface and/or facilities to
import data from proprietary surface modellers and mesh generators.
2. Solver
In outline the numerical methods that form the basis of the solver perform the following steps:

,
• Approximation of the unknown flow variables by means of simple functions.

• Discretisation by substitution of the approximations into the governing flow equations and
subsequent mathematical manipulations.
• Solution of the algebraic equations.
The theory of finite elements has been developed initially for structural stress analysis. A standard
work for fluids applications is Zienkiewickz and Taylor (1991). The finite difference formulation
was originally developed the finite volume method as basic of CFD technique established. The
finite volume method concerned with most well-established and thoroughly validated general
purpose CFD technique. It is central to four of the five main commercially available CFD codes:
PHOENICS, FLUENT, FLOW3D and STAR-CD. The numerical algorithm consists of the
following steps:
• Formal integration of the governing equations of fluid flow over all the (finite) control
volumes of the solution domain.
• Discretisation involves the substitution of a variety of finite-difference-type approximations
for the terms in the integrated equation representing flow processes such as convection,
diffusion and sources. This converts the integral equations into a system of algebraic
equations.
• Solution of the algebraic equations by an iterative method.
3. Post-processor
As in pre-processing a huge amount of development work has recently taken place in the post-
processing field. Owing to the increase popularity of engineering workstations, many of with have
outstanding graphics capabilities, the leading CFD package are now equipped with versatile data
visualisation tools. These include:
• Domain geometry and grid display
• Vector plots
• Line and shaded contour plots
• 2D and 3D surface plots
• Particle tracking
• View manipulation (translation, rotation, scaling etc.)
• Colour postscript
More recently these facilities may also include animation for dynamic result display and in addition
to graphics all codes produce trusty alphanumeric output and have data export facilities for further
manipulation external to the code. As in many other branches of CAE the graphics output capabilities
of CFD codes have revolutionised the communication of ideas to the non-specialist.

,
3.2.2 Fluid Flow Problem and Governing Equations on CFD

In solving fluid flow problems, it need to be aware that the underlying physics is complex and
the results generated by a CFD code are at best as good as the physics embedded in it and at worst as
good as bits operator. Elaborating on the latter issue first, the user of a code must have skills in a
number of areas. Prior to setting up and running a CFD simulation there is a stage of identification
and formulation of the flow problem in terms of the physical and chemical phenomena that need to be
considered.
Performing the actual CFD computation itself requires operator skills of a different kind.
Specification of the domain geometry and grid design is the main tasks at the input stage and
subsequently the user needs to obtain a successful simulation result. The two aspects that characterise
such a result are convergence of the iterative process and girl independence. The solution algorithm is
iterative in nature and in a converged solution the so-called residuals – measures of the overall
conservation of the flow properties – are very small. Progress towards a converged solution can be
greatly assisted by careful selection of the settings of various relaxation factors and accelerations
devices. The only way to eliminate errors due to the coarseness of a grid is to perform a grid
dependence study, which is a procedure of successive refinement of an initially coarse grid until
certain key results do not change. Then the simulation is grid independent. Optimisation of the
solution speed requires considerable experience with the code itself, which can only be acquired by
extensive use. There is no formal way of estimating the errors introduced by inadequate grid design
for a general flow. Good initial grid design relies largely on an insight into the expected properties of
the flow. The only way to eliminate errors due to the coarseness of a grid is to perform a grid
dependence study, which is procedure of successive refinement of an initially coarse grid until certain
key results do not change. Then the simulation is grid independent. A systematic search for grid-
independent result forms an essential part of all high quality CFD studies.
Every numerical algorithm has its own characteristic error patterns. Well-known CFD
euphemisms for the word error are terms such as numerical diffusion, false diffusion or even
numerical flow. At the end of a simulation the user must make a judgement whether the results are
‘good enough’. It is impossible to assess the validity of the models of physics and chemistry
embedded in a program as complex as a CFD code or the accuracy of its final result by any means
other than comparison with experimental test work. Anyone wishing to use CFD in a serious way

,
must realise that it is no substitute for experimentation, but a very powerful additional problem-
solving tool. Validation of a CFD code requires highly detailed information concerning the boundary
conditions of a problem and generates a large volume of results. To validate these in a meaningful
way it is necessary to produce experimental data of similar scope
CFD computation involves the creation of a set of numbers that (hopefully) constitutes a
realistic approximation of a real-life system. One of the advantages of result, but in the prescient
words of C. Hastings (1955), written in pre-IT days: ‘The purpose of computing is insight not
number’. The underlying message is rightly cautionary. The main outcome of any CFD exercise is
improved understanding of the behaviour of a system, but since there are no cast iron guarantees with
regard to the accuracy of a simulation we need to validate our results frequently and stringently.
It is clear that there are guidelines for good operating practice, which can assist the user of
CFD code and repeated validation plays a key role as the final quality control mechanism.
However, the main ingredients for success in CFD are experience and a through understanding of
the physics of fluid flows and the fundamentals of the numerical algorithms. Without these it is
very unlikely that the user gets the best out of a code.
The governing equations of fluid flow represent mathematical statements of the conservation
laws of physics, as written by Aderson, (1996) in this paper, page 48. The first step in the derivation
of the mass conservation equation is to write down a mass balance for the fluid element.
Rate of increase of mass in Net rate of flow of mass into
fluid element = fluid element
The rate of increase of mass in the fluid element is
∂ ∂p
( ρδxδyδz ) = δxδyδz 2.31
∂t ∂t
It is needed to account for the mass flow rate across a face of the element which is given by the
product of density, area and the velocity component normal to the face. From Figure 3.3, it can be
seen that the net rate of flow of mass into the element across its boundaries is given by
 ∂ ( ρu ) 1   ∂( ρu ) 1   ∂( ρv) 1 
 ρu − . δx δyδz −  ρu + . δx δyδz +  ρv − . δy δxδz
 δx 2   δx 2   δy 2 
 ∂ ( ρv ) 1   ∂ ( ρw) 1   ∂ ( ρw) 1 
−  ρv + . δy δxδz +  ρw − . δz δxδy −  ρw + . δz δxδy 2.32
 δy 2   δz 2   δz 2 

,
Flow, which are directed into the element produce an increase of mass in the element and get a
positive sign and those flows that are leaving the element are given a negative sign.
ρ ρ δ
δ
ρ ρ δ
δ
ρ ρ ρ δ
ρ δ
δ δ
ρ ρ δ
δ
ρ ρ δ
δ
Fig.3.3Mass flow in and out of fluid element, by Versteeg & Malalasekera
The rate of increase of mass inside the element is equated to the net rate of flow of mass into the
element across its face (Fig. 3.3). All terms of the resulting mass balance are arranged on the left hand
side of the equals sign and the expression is divided by the element volume δxδyδz.
This yield
∂p ∂ ( ρu ) ∂( ρv) ∂ ( ρw)
+ + + =0 2.33
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z
∂p
or in more compact vector notation + div( ρu ) = 0 2.34
∂t
Equation (2.34) is the unsteady, three-dimensional mass conservation or continuity equation at a
point in a compressible fluid. The first term on the left hand side is the rate of change in time of the
density (mass per unit volume). The second term describes the net flow of mass out of the element
across its boundaries and uts called the convective term.
For an incompressible fluid (i.e.a liquid) the density ρ is constant and equation (2.34)
becomes
div u = 0 2.35
or in longhand notation
∂u ∂v ∂w
+ + =0 2.36
∂x ∂y ∂z

,
In term of momentum equation in three dimensions, the Newton’s second law states that the rate
of change of momentum of a fluid particle equals the sum of the forces on the particle.
Rate of increase of = Sum of forces on fluid particle
momentum of fluid particle
The rates of increase of x-,y- and z- momentum per unit volume of a fluid particle are given by
Du Dv Dw
ρ ρ ρ 2.37
Dt Dt Dt
We distinguish two types of forces on fluid particle:
• Surface forces - pressure forces and viscous forces
• Body forces -gravity force, centrifugal forces, Coriolis & Electromagnetic force
The state of stress of a fluid element is defined in terms of the pressure and the nine
viscous stress components show in figure 3.4.
τ The pressure, a normal stress, is denoted by
τ τ p. Viscous stresses are denoted by ι. The
τ τ usual suffix notation ιij is applied to
τ τ τ τ
τ τ indicate the direction of the viscous
τ τ
τ τ stresses. The suffices I and j in ιij indicate
τ
that the stress component acts in the j-
τ
direction on a surface normal to the i-
Fig.3.4Stress components on three faces of fluid
element, by Versteeg & Malalasekera direction.
τ First we consider the x-

τ δ
τ τ
τ δ τ δ Forces
components of the forces
due to pressure p and aligne
δ δ
δ δ stress components ιxx, ι.yx d with
τ τ
τ δ τ δ and ι.zx show in figure the
3.4. The magnitude of a directi
τ on of
τ δ force resulting from a
surface stress is the a co-
Fig.3.5 Stress components in the x-direction, by Versteeg &
Malalasekera product of stress and area. ordina
te axis

,
get a positive sign and those in the opposite direction a negative sign. The net force in the x-
direction is the sum of the force components acting in that direction on the fluid element.
On the pair of faces (E, W) have
 ∂p 1   ∂τ xx 1    ∂p 1   ∂τ xx 1 
 p − δx . 2 δx  − τ xx − δx . 2 δx δyδz + −  p + δx . 2 δx  + τ xx + δx . 2 δx δyδz
        
 ∂p ∂τ xx 
= − + δx δxδyδz 2.38
 δx ∂x 
The net force in the x-direction on faces (N,S) is
 ∂τ yx 1   ∂τ yx 1  ∂τ yx
− τ yx − . δy δxδz + τ yx + . δy δxδz = δxδyδz 2.39
 ∂y 2   ∂y 2  ∂y
The final net force in the x direction on the T and B is given by

 ∂τ 1   ∂τ 1  ∂τ
− τ zx − zx . δz δxδy + τ zx + zx . δz δxδy = zx δxδyδz 2.40
 ∂z 2   ∂z 2  ∂z
The total force per unit volume on the fluid due to these surface stresses is equal to the sum of
Eq. 2.38, Eq. 2.39 and Eq. 2.40 divided by the volume δxδyδz:
∂(− p + τ xx ) ∂τ yx ∂τ zx
+ +
∂x ∂y ∂z
Without considering the body force, overall effect can be included by defining a source SMx of x-
momentum per-unit volume per unit time. The x-component of the momentum equation is:
Du ∂(− p + τ xx ) ∂τ yx ∂τ zx
ρ = + + + S Mx 2.41a
Dt ∂x ∂y ∂z
The y-component of the momentum equation is:
Dv ∂τ xy ∂ (− p + τ yy ) ∂τ zy
ρ = + + + S My 2.41b
Dt ∂x ∂y ∂z
The z-component of the momentum equation is:
Dz ∂τ xz ∂τ yz ∂(− p + τ zz )
ρ = + + + S Mz 2.41c
Dt ∂x ∂y ∂z
Energy equation involved is derived from the first law of thermodynamics which states that
he rate of change of energy of a fluid particle is equal to the rate of heat addition to the fluid particle
plus the rate of work done on the particle.
Rate of increase of = Net rate of heat added to + Net rate of work done on
energy of fluid particle fluid particle fluid particle.

,
The energy equation can be specified often as the sum of internal (thermal) energy i, kinetic energy ½
(u2+ v2+ w2) and gravitational potential energy. The energy E equation is:
DE  ∂ (uτ xx ) ∂ (uτ xy ) ∂ (uτ zx ) ∂ (vτ xy ) ∂ (vτ yy ) ∂ (vτ zy )
ρ = − div( pu ) +  + + + + +
Dt  ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z
2.42
∂ ( wτ xz ) ∂ ( wτ yz ) ∂ ( wτ zz ) 
+ + + + div(k grad T ) + S E
∂x ∂y ∂z 
The energy is became E = i +½ (u2+ v2+ w2).
The motion of a fluid in three dimensions is described by a system of five partial differential
equations: mass conservative Eq. 2.34, x-, y-, and z moment equations Eq. 2.41a-c and energy
equation Eq. 2.42. The state of substance in thermodynamic equilibrium is used ρ and T as state
variables for state equation of pressure p and specific internal energy i:
p=p(ρ, Τ) and i=i(ρ, Τ) 2.43
For a perfect gas the following equations of state are useful:
p=ρRT and i=CvT 2.44
Finally, a command differential form for all the flow equations identified as transport equation and
developed integrated forms which are central to the finite element volume CFD method: for steady
state processes derived as:
∫ n .( ρφu)dA = ∫ n . (Γ grad φ )dA + ∫ Sφ dV
A A CV
2.45
and for time-dependent processes

∂ 
∫∆t ∂t  CV∫ ( ρφ )dV dt + ∆∫t ∫A n . ( ρφu)dA = ∆∫t ∫A n . (Γ grad φ )dAdt + ∆∫t CV∫ Sφ dVdt 2.46
Generating model on CFD method is difficult without knowing a great deal about flow before
solving a problem..
It is very difficult to specify the
precise number and nature of
allowable boundary conditions
on any fluid/fluid boundary in
the far field. For the convenient
attempt, the boundary condition
Fig.3.6 (a). Boundary condition for an internal flow problem for flow problem specified in
Versteeg & Malalasekera
figure below

,
Fig.3.6 (b) Boundary condition for external flow problem, by Versteeg & Malalasekera
It is obvious that flow inside a CFD solution domain is driven by the boundary conditions. The
difficulties are encountered in obtaining solution, therefore paramount importance that supplied
physically realistic and well-posed boundary conditions are applied. The boundary conditions mostly
affected the rapid of divergence of CFD simulation. A set of ‘best’ boundary condition for viscous
fluid flows, which included the inlet, outlet and wall condition. The finite volume method
implementation included three conditions, constant pressure, symmetry and periodicity, which are
physically realistic and very useful I practical calculations. Some permissible state combination in
subsonic flows:
• Walls only
• Wall and inlet and at least one outlet
• Wall and inlet and at least one constant pressure boundary
• Wall and constant pressure boundaries
Position of outlet boundaries is became a significant matter to contribute in how the flow
can behave effectively. “If outlet boundaries are placed too close to solid obstacles it s possible
that the flow will not have reached a fully developed state which may lead to
sizable errors. It is
imperative that the outlet
boundary is placed much
more further downstream
than 10 height downstream
of the last obstacle to give
accurate result” (fig. 3.7)
Fig. 3.7 Velocity profiles at different locations downstream of an

obstacle, by Versteeg & Malalasekera

,
3.2.3 General Fluid Dynamic Background

Definition of fluid is a substance, which cannot sustain shear stresses whilst at rest. The fluid
problem generally interested in microscopic, rather than molecular scale behaviour that possibly
assumed as a continuous and homogeneous substance. Physical of air justified of 1m cubes contains
27x1024 molecules and the viscosity of air is the resistance to continuous shearing due to a property of
the fluid, which has value of µ =1.82x10-5 kg/m.s at 200 C known as the dynamic viscosity or
absolute viscosity.
Newton’s law of viscosity for fluid is the relationship between shear stress τ and rate of shear
strain γ, with the constant of proportionality being the dynamic viscosity:
d
τ = µ (γ ) = µγ 2.47
dt
or shear stress = dynamic viscosity x rate of shear strain. While the rate of shear strain is equal to the
velocity gradient normal to the shear plane:
dc
τ =µ 2.48
dn
τ µ
Fig. 3.8 by Potts (MMM336) Fig. 3.9 by Potts (MMM336)
Considering steady flow of fluid along a duct of uniform cross sectional flow area (A) at velocity
(c)(figure 3.9). The net volume of fluid crossing plane x-x is thus dV= A.c.dt, and the net mass is
ρ.A.c.dt. Alternatively, volume flow rate Q (= dV/dt) = A.c and mass flow rate is m (=dm/dt) = ρ.A.c.
In CFD method the consideration of the laminar and turbulent flows can be approached from
the definition and also can be specified the behaviour of air by using pipe model in order to know the
differences between them. A simple comparison of both flow features is discussed. The physical
model for the laminar is described by the figure below in left part, on the other hand, the turbulent
behaviour can be described in right part of the table below:

,
Table 3.1 Laminar and Turbulent flow model
A
turbulence model is more focused due to the more complicated problem faced. The turbulent
model can be simplified as a computational procedure to close the system of mean flow equation
described on table below:
Table 3.2 Turbulent flow equations for compressible flows, by Versteeg & Malalasekera
Continuity
∂p
+ div ( ρU ) = 0 2.49
∂t
Reynolds equations
∂ ( ρU ) ∂P
+ div ( ρUU ) = − + div ( µ grad U )
∂t ∂x
 ∂ ( ρ u ' 2 ) ∂ ( ρ u ' v ') ∂ ( ρ u ' w')  2.50a
+ − − −  + S Mx
 ∂x ∂y ∂z 

,
∂ ( ρV ) ∂P
+ div ( ρVU ) = − + div( µ grad V )
∂t ∂x
 ∂ ( ρ u ' v') ∂ ( ρ v' 2 ) ∂ ( ρ u ' w')  2.50b
+ − − −  + S My
 ∂x ∂y ∂z 
∂ ( ρW ) ∂P
+ div ( ρWU ) = − + div( µ grad W )
∂t ∂x
 ∂ ( ρ u ' w') ∂ ( ρ u ' w') ∂ ( ρ w' 2 )  2.50c
+ − − −  + S Mz
 ∂x ∂y ∂z 
Scalar transport equation

∂ ( ρΦ)  ∂ ( ρ u ' ϕ ') ∂ ( ρ v' ϕ ') ∂ ( ρ w' ϕ ') 
+ div ( ρΦU ) = div (ΓΦ gradΦ) + − − −  + SΦ 2.51
∂t  ∂x ∂y ∂z 
For most engineering purposes that is unnecessary to resolve the details of the turbulent
fluctuations. The effect of turbulence on the mean flow is the only effect usually sought. Large
eddy simulations are considered in order to investigate the effect to the model problems. Large
eddy simulation (LES) are turbulence models where the time-equations are solved for the mean
flow and the largest eddies and where the effect of smaller eddies are modelled. Large eddy
simulations are at present at the research stage and the calculations are too costly considered in
general purpose computational. Nowadays, anticipation may be already done the improvement in
computer hardware or may change the perspective in the future. Some LES equations have
derived in Eq. 1.30-1.60 in Chapter 2.
3.3 General Strategies and Procedures

In CFD method, the computer hardware and software must be available in order to
accommodate model data and then run the computer programme so that can be identified the
prediction result of wind load acting on the fabric membrane building model.
The Sun Ultra 5 series workstations in the University of Newcastle upon Tyne are all licensed
to run Fluent version 5 and Gambit. The Fluent 5 is the latest version CFD software from Fluent
Inc., and is a state-of-the-art commercial CFD solver, using the latest unstructured mesh approach.
However, Fluent 5 does not have any internal facilities for mesh generation, and the necessary grids
must be produced using a separate package of Pre-processor. The latest and (most powerful) pre-
processor can be used is Gambit that is supplied by Fluent. Inc too.

,
Creating grid model in Gambit need understanding to identify menu function of software and
must be familiar wait. In order to gain a good and clean result, Gambit has Graphics User Interface or
“GUI” as guide information and as tutor via Netscape. Creating mesh structure model to present
fabric membrane structures are far more difficult due to the shape model of structure usually as a
complex geometry. For the simple shape, the model can be generated directly in Gambit, or when has
no choice that is need time consumed to generate the model. Due to the ability of Gambit to associate
another programme computer package, the geometric mesh model can be developed in such as CAD
programme, that is depend on how far can be used too those programme.
1. AutoCAD Reviews
In this study, AutoCAD programme package has been used to generate grid model structure.
In this commercial package, the three-dimensional model can easily be generated due to wide range
of ability to specify interface in accurately. AutoCAD offers two methods for creating 3D model:
surface modelling and solid modelling. Several kinds of simple models are presented below is 3D
surface modelling generated that are concerned.
Fig.3.10 Example mesh geometric in AutoCAD

,
Fig.3.11Arranged position of inlet, outlet and

wall boundaries in AutoCAD Fig.3.12 The geometry that will be exported from
AutoCAD
Thus, is because the fabric membrane structure developed is based on surface with mostly
curving.
Using AutoCAD’s 3D capabilities, simple object can be created by manipulation of current 3D
surface available. There are some basic shape available for 3D model such as cone, sphere/dome,
torus, pyramid and also have surface developed that such as edge surface, 3D mesh, revolved
surface, tabulated surface, and ruled surface.
Generating model initially in AutoCAD is much more promised due to easier to arrange
the shape of model and to decide easily the dimension of domain as well as the shape of
tunnel/domain generation. It is important part in order to fulfil the requirement the position of
outlet boundary, which can be seen in figure 3.7. The domain must be arranged in deal with the
base point of coordinate (x,y,z = 0,0,0)It is because when importing done, the domain should
created again if only model imported to Gambit with the same domain pattern in AutoCAD. It is
unnecessary when importing included the domain depend on kind of domain developed.
Once the geometry of model structures completed as in example in figure 3.12, the model
is ready to export into Gambit. Initially, it is important to create such as an IGES file before
exporting, in order to associate between the programme consoles. IGES file is the file interface
from the AutoCAD that can only be read by Gambit. The IGES files can be easily operated on
Mechanical Desktop 4 as family of AutoCAD programme. Such as a simple save to IGES file or
imported directly, IGES file has been created. Since that happened the IGES file needed to
transfer to the Gambit as a pre-processor.

,
2. Pre-processor: GAMBIT Reviews

The model structures actually can be created directly in Gambit. However, sometime when a
complicated structure model has been created, it will spend such along time in generation. This
procedure is naturally on the way and relevant problem need time consumed. Developing such as
model structure in Gambit is depend on how the user familiar with the programme, more experience
on it much more helpful. Fortunately, when processing model still has a problem, CAD program is
the alternative ways to produce model structures.
In this study, creating initial model structure has been done in AutoCAD, the IGES file has been
created and has already transferred into Gambit. Processing geometry in Gambit has need through the
guideline or using the tutorial of importing and cleaning up the dirt geometry in order to have a right
way in developing. In general term of Gambit procedure, it can be summarised about importing IGES
file in the following item below:
• Importing an IGES file
• Connecting edges, using manual and an automatic method
• Merge face
• Creating a triangular surface mesh, or others
• Mesh a volume with a tetrahedral mesh or using different volume mesh
• Prepare the mesh to be read into Fluent 5.
In term of importing and cleaning geometry, there are strategies of how to dealt with and
passed through the pre-processor (Gambit) before solved by the Solver (Fluent 5). Creating a fully
unstructured tetrahedral mesh around a China hat as an example problem in Gambit, firstly the model
geometry imported as an IGES file.
The tutorial will be guided the step that would typically follow to prepare an imported CAD
geometry for meshing. It is the geometry “dirty” that is needed to clean up the geometry using the
tool available in Gambit. A very obvious tutorial guided how to do the right thing fixed the gap
automatically either during mesh importing or subsequently by means of the “connect edge”
command.

,
A B
D
Fig.3.13 Arranged model generated, domain, and floating element (tetrahedral)
The original CAD geometry is not modified during the fixing process; the modifications
required to eliminate the gaps are made using ”virtual” geometry. Some edges in the original
geometry are very short and will be eliminated using the “vertex connect” command. Other edges are
not automatically connected, because they are farther apart than the specified tolerance, it is needed to
connect such edges manually.
The imported geometry includes a number of small surfaces, the edges of which may
unnecessarily constrain the mesh generation process. Using the “merge faces” command, GAMBIT
allows to easily combined these surfaces prior to meshing. It can then have GAMBIT automatically
create a triangular mesh on the China hat model, it can be seen in figure 3.13 B. Since the imported
geometry consists only of the China hat, it is need to create a suitable domain around the China hat
model structure in order to conduct a CFD analysis (this is loosely equivalent to placing the structure
in a wind tunnel)(fig.3.11). The remainder of the tutorial shown how to add a real box around the
structure, use virtual geometry to create some missing faces, and finally stitch all faces together into a

,
single volume. This volume can then be meshed (without any decomposition) using a tetrahedral
meshing scheme or using another suitable mesh volume. (Fig. 3.13A-D)
The next attempt in Gambit process
is set a boundary type to the domain
in which condition flow to be
specified. In order for the mesh to be
properly transferred to Fluent, the
edges must be assigned boundary
types, such as wall, inlet, outlet, etc.
In this general example, velocity inlet
Fig.3.14 Arranged position of inlet, outlet and wall created on the tunnel
boundaries in AutoCAD
where moving air while other side of tunnel as the outflow and mostly of all side of tunnel is wall or
only two side of tunnel is wall with free edges on the top. Figure 3.13 show the boundary or vicinity
requirement so that when model structure completely passed through the examination in this process,
the mesh developed can be appreciated by the Fluent. Finally, once the boundary type has been set,
the mesh is ready to transfer to the Fluent (solver). In the main Gambit window, the command is File
ExportMeshAccept.
3. Solver: Fluent Reviews
Starting Fluent 5, firstly need to define as 3D base in order to specify the 3D environment
identification, which is same orientation developed in the previous process. The next step is
defining viscous model and fluid properties. In the main Fluent window, that is
DefineModelsViscous. Laminar is a default viscous model have got, if it was intending to
solve a turbulent flow, then another turbulence models such as k-epsilon, Reynolds stress and
Large Eddy simulation can be selected. Then, material fluids need to define whether is default or
define as a special ‘custom’ of fluid material to be selected.
Boundary condition of zone will be identified as default automatically by this programme.
In the main Fluent window, that is DefineBoundary conditionSet. When it is continued the

,
example problem above, boundary conditions will appear as zone identified that are velocity inlet
zone, wall zone and outflow zone. In order to update the velocity inlet motion, it is allowed a
value data entry to be set. The next term of Fluent solution is iterative solution for flow field, in
the main Fluent window, the following command step is SolveControlsSolution. Iterative
solution of the governing conservation equations is the important part due to the non-linearity of
equations must be solved until the iterative process is converges. Final solution can be recorded
by using residual monitor available in order to judge convergence behaviour on graph of residual
against iteration numbers. During iteration, time to be consumed that are depend on how the
simple or complex problem have. It is long time to be consumed when such as turbulent model
solved due to more complex governing equation developed. Once the iteration has convergence,
how the solution is progressing can be checked. In the main Fluent window, DisplayVelocity
Vectors/ContourPressurePressure coefficientDisplay. The graphical display window will
show the velocity vectors or contour of pressure coefficient, zooming needed to view the velocity
field in more detail if desired.
In Fluent, data resulted as graphical and diagram. Simple command direction FileHardcopy,
the data can be obtained. The default graphics display window on the screen shows plots with a black
background and colored objects (foreground). At this point, to preview the hardcopy, Preview, which
is the desired case for hardcopy printouts.
4. Post-processor
As an explanation before by Versteeg and Malalaseker, other facilities may also included in order
to manipulate the dynamic result display into an addition graphical. As in many other programme
graphics output capabilities, thus can be connected to CFD codes, which have revolutionised the
communication of ideas to the non-specialist.
Once the graphical has been resulted on Fluent, its mean processing of the whole step
development of the numerical methods are nearly finished. Graphical data and diagram can be simply
obtained from Fluent. It is simple to command (FileHardcopy), the data can be printed out directly
to printer. There are several types of file association can arranged the dynamic graphical in order to
present data properly. In this study, graphical and diagram data saved as a format file under GSview
programme. In order to organise data graphical and diagram into a different format file, the graphical

,
as well as diagram can be saved as EPS or PS format with colour postscript based development. It is
as an alternative procedure to produce graphical format on project report or any journal.
It is a procedure review done due to the availability of programme and in order to make smooth
transfer into different programme rather than to printout directly from Fluent or Unix cluster. A
difficult arrangement established on these programme during presenting graphical and diagram data
on paper. However, there are impressive format graphical and diagram presented directly on
computer monitor display.
3.4 Detail Of Model Experimental

In this study, pursued numerical simulation of tensile membrane structures are developed in
CFD simulation as an engineering tool presented wind tunnel. The model structures generated are
placed on tunnel model of computational domain. The main structures models developed are sphere,
and cooling tower. Those models are presented a basic shape of fabric membrane structures. The
model represented variations of structures that consist of cable suspended roof that support fabric
membranes. The structures shape models have chosen due to the needed to compare, the result of
CFD methods to the published data available of the previous research.
At the first stage of the project, it was planned to solve the common specified problem in
wind engineering by CFD methods that adopted as a computational model of a low-rise building with
sphere and cooling tower model developed. (Figure 3.15.a & b).
Fig. 3.15. a Sphere Elevation Fig. 3.15. b Cooling Tower Elevation
In this study, position of the velocity inlet, the wall and the outflow are arranged such as
described below. These pattern of outflow/outlet boundaries are placed at 20 times the height of
the obstacle (20 H) which was the same as in experiments performed by Tamura, cs. This distant
is long enough in order to avoid the possibilities that the flow reached the range across a wake
region with recalculation which my lead to measurement error. The typical velocity inlet was

,
placed at 10 times the height of model (10H), while the wall can be arranged between 7H and
10H that are depended on the amount of volume element generation needed. It is important
because of the limitation of space disk on the computer availability. The bigger domain have, the
bigger quota space disk needed. The top wall was also placed at 10 times height of model (10H).
Somewhat further conditions that the outlet boundary is placed at least at 10H as the typical
literature reviewed before (fig. 3.7). However the outlet boundary placed much longer than 10H
downstream of the last obstacle to give accurate result.
Fig. 3.16 Computational domain development
The model detail preparation was adopted as a computational model of a low-rise building
with sphere and cooling tower model developed. Each of the basic models has been modified as a
multiple model. There are several model involved including combination of each member that is
described below:
3.4.1 Single Cooling Tower Model

,
This model was adopted from the

original Heler type dry-cooling tower.
The model developed is simple shape
rather than the real one with other
component such as the water pipes,
radiator, support beam, etc. It is because
the shape of it is nearly the same as the
requirement of the fabric membrane Fig. 3.17 Sketch of Heler-type dry cooling tower
(De1.igs of IGES file)
structures shape. The other reason is the needed of published data availability to compare with the
further result. In this particular case, the model was arranged to the same shape and dimensional to
the model developed in the experimental method (wind tunnel). It is because much easier to make
model in AutoCAD and exported to Gambit. Providing model in the experimental method more
difficult or need time to spend. Once the model has developed in the experimental or in wind tunnel
test, the shape model can be are developed the same as the model in wind tunnel test immediately.
The cooling tower model was measured as height (H = 16 cm), the top diameter (D2 = 10.5
cm), and the bottom structures (D1= 20.5 cm). Creating geometry in CFD was selected as a default of
measurement in meter. Again, it is more useful to make model in small scale in order to reduce the
space disk consumed. This model was modified into smaller scale in CFD, that was made as H=1.6
m, D2=1.05m and D2=2.05m, respectively.
The cooling tower has divided into 6 (six) surfaces with every
connection have a rib. This model was used 6 ribs and 1cover on the
top, while there is no surface on the bottom. (Figure 3.17). A part of
cooling tower geometry includes a number of small surfaces will be
generated as constrain the mesh generation process as figure 3.18.
Fig. 3.18 Internal
count space
Using the “merge faces” command, GAMBIT allows to easily combining these surfaces prior to
meshing. In GAMBIT, then automatically create a triangular mesh on every surface of the model, in
figure 3.18.

,
In this particular case, there are domain

developed, which is based on the height of
z model situated in the suitable place. The
x
y
dimensional of domain developed is 48 x
22.4 x 16 with unit a long x direction as the
length, y direction as
Fig. 3.19 Domain of Single Cooling Tower
wide and z direction as the height of domain respectively. For the study of cooling tower, the
computational region developed is shown in figure 3.20. Beside of that is only half of
the field simulation can present
the whole simulation. However,
in this study the whole body of
model simulation involved in
order to know the pressure
pattern distribution in fully
three-dimensional. In CFD
method the capacity and
capability of computer is
Fig. 3.20 Computational region and coordinate system. absolutely needed. In this case,
because of the limitation capacity of disk space quota at about 128-140 MB and the speed limit of 128
MB RAM, relatively small grid number of mesh generated. The grid number for the cooling tower
simulation is 30 x 10 x 20, i.e. 30 grids in the main flow direction, 10 grids along the circumference
of the tower and 20 grids in wide direction.
3.4.1. Detail Procedure and Instruction:

Instruction:
In this report is a procedure that enables to solve 3-D of cooling tower in flow problem with
the CFD program, Fluent. In this stage, the notation should already be familiar with used in this
module, or can be described in the learning module, Fluent and Gambit-General Information.
Log on and launch Fluent:

,
1. Log onto one of the UNIX cluster computers. It is useful completed the Gambit learning
module for generating the grid.
2. To begin Gambit and Fluent from the UNIX % command prompt: Fluent. nit
3. To start working in Gambit, type: gambit De1-dev x11
Note: De1 is the example case of the cooling tower problem.
4. From main menu, specified Fluent 5 is the base of solver.
Read the grid points and geometry of the cooling tower (in Gambit); used importing and cleaning up model design procedure.
1. Selected a solver (Fluent 5)

2. Imported the IGES file from AutoCAD as the import source of the developing cooling tower
geometric: File Import IGES
3. Selected the cooling tower model (De1.igs) in the files list.
4. Checked the connectivity-based in colouring geometry: Specify colour mode.
Note: Since the models were already arranged on AutoCAD that is can be reduced and eliminated
the short edges depend on the knowledge on the model developed. If it is needed to eliminate very
short edges, there are connection facilities available: Geometry Edge Connect/Disconnect
edges. Since, there is no problem the connection between vertex and the sort edges, the step
process can be continued.
5. Created a surface mesh on the face of the cooling tower body: Mesh Face Mesh Faces.
In this case, mash faces developed on model is triangular element of pave type generation
with 10 interval count spacing, shown in figure 3.18.
Note: the surface
mesh of model body
can be removed from
display in order to
make easier to see in
the next steps.
Fig. 3.21. Surface mesh on rear of cooling tower

,
6. Created a brick around the cooling tower body: Geometry Volume Create volume. The
width (x) =48, depth (y) =22.4, and height (z) =16, shown in figure 3.19.and 3.22.
Fig. 3.22 Brick and Cooling tower
7. Removed unwanted geometry: Geometry Volume Delete Volumes.

8. Created straight edges on one of the line nearly to the bottom of model: Geometry Edges
Split/merge edges. Two times performed split of the nearly line in order to make another
surface connection between the model and the domain developed. Create straight edges
between two point/vertex: Geometry Edge Create Edge (Fig.3.22)
9. Created faces at the bottom wall plane, where the model is mounted: Geometry Face
Form face. Once the face can be made, the face creations need to be verified: Geometry
Face Summarize/query faces/total entities.
10. Created volume: Geometry Volume Form volume. It can be applied in the stitch faces
form to accept the selection of the faces to create volume.
11. Created mesh the edges: Mesh Edge Mesh Edges. The mesh created on the faces of the
cooling tower is used a fine mesh and for the volume, more coarse mesh created. This can be
done by instructed the Gambit to gradually change the mesh density between the coarse and
the fine meshes. Its mean, to specify the distribution of nodes along the some edges in the
geometry.
12. Created mesh the volume: Mesh Volume Mesh Volumes. The tetrahedral or hybrid
from the elements option menu under schema in the mesh volume form of Tgrid was selected
with interval count at 30.
13. Examined the volume mesh: Examine mesh. It can be identified mesh volume created, aspect
ratio, how many nodes created and the skew of floating element volume created. The 3D

,
element or mesh volume can be evaluated of 111841 mesh volume and creating 23738 nodes
developed with 1: 4 of aspect ratios.
Fig. 3.23 Elements within a specified quality range of 0.6 upper and 0. 7 lower ratios
14. Set Boundary Types: Zones Specify Boundary Types. It is defined the velocity inlet zone
in the surface of entry boundary, the outflow zone in the surface of exit boundary and the rest
is wall or free boundary. (Fig. 3.20.)
15. Exported the mesh and saved the session problem: File Export Mesh Accept. To
save the current session: File Exit (Gambit asked whether the session will be saved or not)
Read the grid points and geometry of the cooling tower in flow domain (in Fluent):
1. Selected FileRead Case. In Select File, select De1.msh from the listing of available files
shown, then OK. Fluent will read in the grid geometry and mesh that was previously created
by Gambit. Some information is displayed on the main screen. If all went well, it should give
no errors, and the word Done should appear.
2. Verified the integrity of the grid: Grid Check. Look for any error messages that indicate a
problem with the grid. If the grid is not valid, it will have to return to Gambit and regenerate
the grid.
3. Look at the grid: Display Grid Display. A new window opens up showing the grid. If
this window is too big, rescale it by dragging the edges of the window. It is best if the
graphical display window is small enough that both it and the Fluent window are both visible
simultaneously.
4. The graphical display can be zoomed-in or zoomed-out with the middle mouse button.

,
Define the boundary conditions:

1. In Fluent, Define Models Viscous. Laminar flow is the default and the further
investigation will also provided Turbulent flow calculations, where both of model flows are
specified in Fluent. OK.
2. The boundary conditions need to be specified. In Gambit, the boundary conditions were
declared, i.e. wall, velocity inlet, etc., but actual values for inlet velocity, etc. were never
defined. This must be done in Fluent. In Fluent: Define Boundary Conditions, and a
new Boundary Conditions window will pop up.
3. In Boundary Conditions, selected name of velocity inlet or whatever named, which is the left
side of the computational domain. Set.
4. In Velocity Inlet, change Velocity Specification Method to Magnitude and Direction. Change
Velocity Magnitude to 1 m/s. OK.
5. The fluid needs to be defined. In Boundary Conditions, select fluid, and Set. The default
fluid is air, which is the fluid we desire in this problem. Select air as the Material Name in the
Fluid window, and OK.
Note: Defining Material is the air as the default material name with default the density of 1.225
(kg/m3) and viscosity of 1.7894 x 10 –5 (kg/m-s). Leave the Materials window.
6. Return to the Boundary Conditions window. The default boundary conditions for the wall and
the outflow are okay, so nothing needs done to those
7. Finally, Close the Boundary Conditions window.
Set up some parameters and initialize:
1. In Fluent: Solve Initialize Init. The default initial values of velocity and gage pressure
are all zero. The convergence can be sped up slightly be giving more realistic values of the
initial velocity distribution. Apply, Init and Close.
2. As the code to monitor iterates, "residuals" are calculated for each flow equation. These
residuals represent a kind of average error in the solution - the smaller the residual, the more
converged the solution. In the main window, Solve Monitors Residual. In Residual
Monitors, turn on Plot in the Options portion of the window. The Print option should already
be on by default. Here, Print refers to text printed in Fluent, and Plot causes the code to plot
the residuals on the screen while the code is iterating.

,
3. The convergence criteria need to be set. In Fluent, SolveIterate to open up the Iterate
window. The Number of Iterations can be predicted into small or big numbers depend on the
model developed. For Laminar flow problem, iteration set up to 250, and for the Turbulent
flow problem the iteration set until 1600 and Iterate. The main screen will listed the
number of the residuals after every iteration, while the graphics display window will plot the
residuals as a function of iteration number. It can be seen in figure 3.24 (laminar) and 3.25
(turbulent).
4. Once the convergence criteria of the iteration has archived, the graphical and diagram data
can be exploited in order to collect the target data. Since there are several measurements can
be obtained, the only criteria of suitable data has been selected, and collected as a report
project. It is because the relevant issue such as of pressure coefficient is the significant data
targeted. In Fluent: Contour Pressure Pressure Coefficient Display. In this stage,
graphical contour and plot of diagram can be collected. The result selected can be printed out
directly to the printer or can be saved as a variety of file format desired. In this study, the
pressure coefficient contour as well as the diagram has saved in .EPS format in order to link
with the other post-processor programme.

,
Fig. 3.24 Plot the residual of laminar flow and number iteration converged at 118.

,
Fig. 3.25 Plot the residual of turbulent flow and 427 number iteration converged
3.4.1. B The Result of the Laminar Flows of Cooling Tower

,
Fig. 3.26.a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan (Coded De1)
Fig. 3.26.b Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from side elevation

,
Fig. 3.26.c Diagram pressure coefficient in distance position of the model to the sources.

,
Fig. 3.26.d Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.2 H ~ 32 m (Plane-5)
Fig. 3.26.e Diagram pressure coefficient at z =0.2 H ~ 32 m (Plane-5)

,
Fig. 3.26.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6)

,
Fig. 3.26.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6)
Fig. 3.26.h Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.7 H ~ 112 m (Plane-7)
Wind Loading on a Fabric Structure100

,
Fig. 3.26.i Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.7 H ~ 112 m (Plane-7)
3.4.1. C The Result of the Turbulent Flows under Large Eddy Simulation
(LES) of Cooling Tower

,

,

,
Fig. 3.27.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6)

,
Fig. 3.27.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6)

,
3.4.2 Multiple Cooling Tower model
This model was also

adopted from the original
Heler type dry-cooling tower,
which was tight together of
four cooling tower with
connection in between, figure
3.28. This shape is
developed is because the
inspiration of the shape of
tent that nearly has the same
curve as the domination of

,
the fabric membrane

structures, figure 1.2.
Fig. 3.28 Sketch of Multiple Cooling Tower (De5.igs of IGES file)
The cooling tower model was measured as height (H = 13 cm), the top diameter (D2 = 7 cm each),
and the bottom structures (D1= 22 cm).
This model geometry was modified in CFD with was selected as a default of measurement in
meter. It is smaller scale developed that was made as H=1.3 m, D2=0.7m and D2=2.2m, respectively.
This multiple cooling tower has also divided into several surfaces with every connection has a rib.
This model was used 6 ribs and 1cover on the top, while there is no surface on the bottom. (Figure
3.17). A part of cooling tower geometry includes a number of small surfaces will be generated as
constrain the mesh generation process as figure 3.18. The domain developed was based on the
height of model
situated in the suitable place. The

dimensional of domain developed is 39 x
18.2 x 13 in unit with along of x direction as
z the length, y direction as wide and z
x
y direction as the height of domain
respectively.
Fig. 3.29 Domain of Multiple Cooling Tower
For this investigation, the computational region developed is typically as shown in figure 3.20. The
grid number for the cooling tower simulation is 35 x 10 x 25, i.e. 35 grids in the main flow direction,
10 grids along the circumference of the tower and 25 grids in wide direction. Detail procedure and
instruction was typical information to be described start from page 71 above.

,
Recapitulation to read the grid points and geometry of the multiple cooling tower (in
Gambit) can be described in figure scheme below with the same procedure in importing and
cleaning up model design.
Fig. 3.30. Grid mesh generating of imported Fig. 3.31. Surface mesh on rear of multiple
file IGES from AutoCAD in Gambit. cooling tower
Creating a brick around the multiple cooling tower body of the width (x) =39, depth (y) =18, 2, and
height (z) =13, can be described below in figure 3.32.
Fig. 3.33 Elements within a specified quality range

Fig. 3.32 Brick and Cooling tower of 0.6 upper and 0. 7 lower ratios
Examining the volume mesh is part of evaluating the reliability of element developed. It can be
identified mesh volume created, aspect ratio, how many nodes created and the skew of floating
element volume created. The 3D element or mesh volume can be evaluated of 34683 meshes volume
and creating 162937 nodes developed with 1: 7 of aspect ratios, which domain developed as 4 wall, 1
velocity inlet and 1 outflow. There is different meshes volume developed when the domain is as 3
walls, 1 velocity inlet and 2 outflows. The meshes volume developed is 29765 elements and 15042
nodes with aspect ratio of 1:7.
By defining Velocity Inlet Magnitude typically at 1 m/s and the material air with default the
density of 1.225 (kg/m3) and viscosity of 1.7894 x 10 –5 (kg/m-s), then the Fluent will processed the
flow problem Typical process has been applied as well to process iteration prediction into a numbers

,
depend on the model developed. Typical Laminar flow problem, iteration set up to 250, and the
Turbulent problem iteration set until 1600. After process, numbers of iteration of the laminar is 104
and 308 iteration for turbulent
The graphical and diagram data can be exploited, since the convergence criteria of the iteration
have archived. There are several data and graphical measurement obtained with the only criteria of
suitable data selected, and collected. The relevant issue to wind loading is pressure coefficient is the
significant data targeted, that described below:
3.4.2. A The Result of the Turbulent Flows under Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
of Multiple Cooling Tower
Since the turbulent flows have the opportunity to present more promises result of the relevant
pressure coefficient issue, so that the result of turbulent flows under Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
presented. In this case, all the result as graphical
Fig. 3.34.a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan

,

,

,

,
Fig. 3.34.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 58.5 m (Plane-6)
Fig. 3.34.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.45 H ~ 58.5 m (Plane-6)

,

,
3.4.3 Single Sphere Model
This model was

adopted from the original
domes as the arched roof
based on the Maher and
Blessmann. The shape
developed is the basic of
domes structures inspiration,
which is used to be a fabric
membrane structures, figure
3.35. This model is a circular
dome rising directly from the
Fig. 3.35 Sketch of Single Sphere (De3.igs of IGES file)
ground with y/d = ½.
The sphere model was measured as height, y or H = 7.5 cm, and diameter of bottom structures is D =
15 cm. Another model of circular dome formatted as y/d =1/4 and y/d =1/6 are also developed, which
are presented in Appendix 3.
The model geometry was modified in CFD with was selected as a default of measurement in
meter. A smaller scale developed of H=0.75 m, and D=1.5m, respectively. The single sphere has
divided into 8 (eight) surfaces with every connection have a rib. The surface of the sphere is known
as smooth domes in the field of researcher. In this term, the geometry developed is involved small
interval (10 interval meshes) of surfaces will be generated as constrain the mesh generation process as
similar prospect in figure 3.18. The domain developed was based on the height of model, which is
situated in the suitable place.
The dimensional of domain

developed is 22.5 x 10.5 x 7.5 in
unit, which are long x direction as
the length, y direction as wide and z
direction as the height of domain

,
respectively.
z
x
y
Fig. 3.36 Domain of Single Sphere.
The computational region developed is typically as shown in figure 3.20. The grid number for the
single sphere simulation is 35 x 8 x 20, i.e. 35 grids in the main flow direction, 8 grids along the
circumference of the tower and 20 grids in wide direction. Detail procedure and instruction was
typical information to be described start from page 71 above.
Recapitulation to read the grid points and geometry of the single sphere (in Gambit) can be
described in figure scheme below with the same procedure in importing and cleaning up model
design.
Fig. 3.37. Grid mesh generating of

imported file IGES from AutoCAD in Fig. 3.38. Brick and Sphere
Gambit and already meshed on rear of
sphere surface.
Creating a brick around the multiple cooling tower body of the width (x) =22.5, depth (y) =10.5, and
height (z) =7.5, can be described above in figure 3.38.

,
Fig. 3.39 .The mesh developed on domain.
To evaluate the reliability of element developed the volume meshes need to be examined. The
examining identified the mesh volume created, aspect ratio, how many nodes created and the skew of
floating element volume created. The 3D element or mesh volume can be evaluated of 120838
meshes volume and creating 25504 nodes developed with 1: 4 of aspect ratios, which domain
developed as 4 wall, 1 velocity inlet and 1 outflow. There is different meshes volume developed when
the domain is as 3 walls, 1 velocity inlet and 2 outflows. The meshes volume developed is 25519
elements and 120909 nodes with aspect ratio of 1:4.
Typical process has been applied as well to process iteration prediction set up to 250 for laminar
flow and set up 1600 iteration for turbulent problem flows. The result is 88 iteration for laminar and
470 iterations for turbulent problem. Velocity Inlet Magnitude defined at 1 m/s and the material air
with default the density of 1.225 (kg/m3) and viscosity of 1.7894 x 10 –5 (kg/m-s), then the Fluent will
processed the flow problem
The graphical and diagram data can be obtained since the convergence has been archived. Several
data and graphical measurement collected that is described below:

,
3.4.3. A The Result of the Turbulent Flows under Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
of Single Sphere

,

,
3.4.4 Multiple Sphere Model
This model was

arranged of four single
spheres that are tight
together. In this particular
case, the geometry of multi
sphere developed is inspirited
by the tensile structure and
portable structure published
literature. The shape
developed is among of the
four sphere is model of
circular dome rising directly
from the ground with y/d =
½. That is created as fabric
membrane structures, (figure Fig. 3.42 Sketch of Multiple Sphere (De4.igs of IGES file)
3.42)
The multiple sphere model was measured as height, y or H = 7.5 cm, and diameter of bottom
structures is D = 25 cm.
The model geometry was modified in CFD with was selected as a default of measurement in
meter. A smaller scale developed of 1/10 of the real model that is H=0.75 m, and D=2.5m,
respectively. On every single sphere has divided into 8 (eight) surfaces with every connection has a
rib. In Gambit process, the geometry developed is small interval (10 interval meshes), which the
surfaces generated as constrain the mesh generation process as similar potential in figure 3.18. The
domain developed was based on the height of model, which is situated in the suitable place.
The dimensional of domain developed is the

same as the single sphere due to the same
height that is 22.5 x 10.5 x 7.5 in unit,
which are long x direction as the length, y

,
direction as wide and z direction as the

height of domain respectively.
z
x
y
Fig. 3.43 Domain of Multiple Spheres.
The computational region developed is typically as shown in figure 3.20. The grid number for the
single sphere simulation is 35 x 10x 25, i.e. 35 grids in the main flow direction, 10 grids along the
circumference of the tower and 25 grids in wide direction. Detail procedure and instruction was
typical information to be described start from page 71 above.
Recapitulation of the grid points and geometry of the multiple spheres (in Gambit) with the same
procedure in importing and cleaning up model design can be described in figure scheme below:
Fig. 3.44. Grid mesh generating of

imported file IGES from AutoCAD in Fig. 3.45. Surface mesh on rear of multiple
Gambit cooling tower
Creating a brick around the multiple cooling tower body of the width (x) =48, depth (y) =22.4, and
height (z) =16, can be described below in figure 3.39.
Fig. 3.46. Brick and Sphere

,
The examining identified of the mesh volume created were evaluated 163452 meshes volume and
34763 nodes developed with 1: 4 of aspect ratios, which domain developed as 4 wall, 1 velocity inlet
and 1 outflow. There is different meshes volume developed when the domain is as 3 walls, 1 velocity
inlet and 2 outflows. The meshes volume developed is 162937 elements and 34683 nodes with aspect
ratio of 1:4.
Typical process has been applied as well to process iteration prediction set up to 250 for laminar
flow and set up 1600 iteration for turbulent problem flows. The result is 99 iterations for laminar and
error result in iterations for turbulent problem. Velocity Inlet Magnitude defined at 1 m/s and the
material air with default the density of 1.225 (kg/m3) and viscosity of 1.7894 x 10 –5
(kg/m-s), then
the Fluent will processed the flow problem
The graphical and diagram data can be obtained since the convergence has been archived. Several
data and graphical measurement collected that is described below:
3.4.4 .a The Result of the Turbulent Flows under Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
of Multiple Spheres

,

,
In this particular case, the result of laminar flows problem can be described in Appendix
3. In addition, one example of turbulent flow problem (RAN) has also been investigated. For
further detail, all result from CFD method can be described in Appendix 3 and any other reason
for this decision can also drawn in the summary of this study.

,
Chapter 5. Conclusion
5.1 Introduction
Four scale models were constructed, and wind load testing of these models have been
observed regarding the behaviour of fabric membrane structure including two models as an
additional test. The conclusion drawn from observations will be summarized below, along with
recommendations for further research.
5.2 Wind Tunnel Testing

Unfortunately, wind tunnel testing cannot be done; it is because a non-popular reasons
that the technician and specific tools are not available during the period time. Those models
promised to test in wind tunnel at that time, then such as a problem came up before testing.
1:1000 scale model was already constructed, however it doesn’t complete with the requirement of
model such as maintaining the pressure taps. The technician was not available is a real problem to
avoid testing. Fortunately, published data available led to a number of observations regarding the
behaviour of wind load to these structures. In this particular case, data of wind tunnel test has
completely been replaced and the published data available represented wind tunnel study.
5.3 Wind loading test by CFD method

The numerical investigation of wind load testing on CDF method indicated that the
general nature of the pressure and suction distributions on the model were obtained. In this
particular case, the advantages of CFD method applied wind load to fabric membrane structure
rather than to solve the dynamic fluid behaviour of wind problems.
However, various flow model problems have been tried such as laminar and turbulence to
the model structures. These current statuses of flow model applied in order to recognise a better
result can be obtained. Laminar flow problem has been applied to the all model structures as a
default in Fluent or solver CFD. Reynolds Number simulation (RANS) has been tried in sphere
model only in order to compare to other simulation model. The latest model simulation has been
tried is the dynamic Large Eddy simulation (LES).

,
5.3.1 Comparison reliability between Laminar and Turbulent problem flow model in
CFD method
The results of these methods are more concern in predicting pressure coefficient, which is
useful for the wind load to the structure. Eventually, many parameters can be observed in this
area related to the result of CFD method such as velocity, dynamic and static pressure, and other
behaviour of wind load to the structures.
The result has been compared between the laminar and the turbulent model. More specific
comparison has been done to the laminar simulation model, RANS model and the LES model.
From the three models simulation involved, the dynamic Large Eddy simulation (LES by
Smagorinsky & Lilly’s) model indicated has a better result obtained. The laminar model offered
the worst result in every stage investigation, however there is not take for along time to get the
result when it running the iteration. On average, RANS and LES model need time consumed
longer than in laminar model. It is depend on the capacity of computer has been used. This result
can be proofed and observed in many other area studies. The results are indicated have agreement
to earlier studies and indeed are supported by the researcher whom concerned to this problem.
5.3.2 Comparison between published data and CFD method study of wind loading to
fabric membrane structure.
Fabric membrane structures model has been developed in several shape model that are
sphere, shape model as a cooling tower and tandem model or combination on each the basic
model. The single sphere and single cooling tower shape model are similar to the model
developed on the earlier study. Published data by Maher on domes model and ASCE 1987 on
cooling tower replaced data wind tunnel testing on model fabric membrane structure.
The numerical experiment on CFD method gives good opportunity to predict pressure
distribution of wind loading to fabric structure and other parameter required. It is because wide
range capabilities belong to the CFD and it is quite easy to develop model desired. It is also more
application programme has already link with the CFD such as AutoCAD program, in order to
make it easy to develop model.
The pressure coefficient distribution that obtained from the CFD methods has agreed to
the published data available, particularly on domes and cooling tower model. Very close value of
maximum positive Cp = + 0.621 by dynamic LES turbulent method to the Cp = +0.6 (Maher’s

,
dome study of h/D =½). Maximum Cp at the centre of dome of by CFD is Cp = –1.2 and Maher
has Cp = -1. Pressure coefficient on various h/D values such as ¼ and 1/6 has also been observed
that indicated similar argue to the published data.
Mean and fluctuating pressure distribution on cooling tower by the CFD has also
indicated good agreement to the ASCE published. The maximum value of pressure coefficient
(positive Cp = + 0.965) occurred around the throat of cooling tower compare favourably to the
ASCE at Cp =+1.0. The maximum negative Cp=- 1.4 to –1.7 were obtained by CFD that
compared to the Cp = -1.5 by ASCE. This result has smoothly promised prediction on the study,
which led to a number of observations regarding the behaviour of fabric membrane structures.
5.4 General Conclusion and Recommendations

It was good opportunity of CFD method to predict wind loading to the fabric membrane
structures. The result is promised to solve a problem such as wind load acting to the fabric
structure or to other structures. The model developed in CFD is more flexible depend on the
ability of user to make it. Many kinds model structure can be developed easily regarding to the
aims of research study. All of them are such as the advantage of CFD methods presented,
however it is depend on the capability and availability of computer hardware and the software.
As an individual conclusion that this study would probably be replaced the wind tunnel testing to
predict pressure coefficient and other parameters intended. It also may be concluded that many
advantages can be used for other study related to structural engineering.
This investigations have been conducted indicate that additional study of this type needs
to be executed in order to obtain a better understanding to fabric membrane structures. One
aspect that future research should address is the real wind tunnel testing to this type model
structure. It is belief that more confidence study will be presented when wind tunnel studies can
be established.
Appendix 1
In general, fundamental aspect cable mechanics can be illustrated by the treatment of a
weightless string supported at A and B and loaded as shown in figure 1. The moment at a point X in
the cable is given by:
Mx = Mex − Hz 1

,
T1
Moment at any point on
cable = 0
T5
Mex
z= 2
H
H
H B
A where Mex is the simple
SA
SB bending moment at x.
X
P4 Consider a string
P1
P2 P3
stretched between A and
B figure A1. 2. a When
load P to a central , it
deflects
Fig. A1.1Funicular curve of a cable loaded with point loads
By an amount W1, and
the value of the tension in
it changes from T1 to
T1+∆ T1.
P
For the equilibrium of the
deflected string,
W1
P = 4(T1 + ∆T1 ) 3
L
P+P
Fig. A1.2 Load vs. deflection for a taut string

PL
or W 1 = 4
4T2
where T2 = T1+ ∆ T1
Further loaded with an additional load P, it undergoes a change in tension equal to ∆T2 and a
deflection W2 as shown in figure A1.2 b. For the equilibrium of final deflected shape.
1
2 P = 4(T2 + ∆T2 )(W 1 + W 2) 5
L
or, on substitution of the value of W1 from Eq. 3-4 and rearranging,
PL − 4∆T2W 1
W2 = 6
4(T2 + ∆T2 )

,
Appendix 2
1. Differential Equations of equilibrium
Initial consideration to the equilibrium of a plane element subjected to normal stresses σ x and
σ y , in plane shear stress τ xy (in unit of force per unit volume), and body forces Xb and Yb (in units
of force per unit volume), as shown in figure A2.1
Firstly, the stresses are assumed to

σ σ τ τ
be constant as they act on the width
of each face, however the stresses
σ are assumed to vary from one face
σ σ
to the opposite. σ x acting on the
τ
left vertical face, whereas
τ τ τ
σ  ∂σ 
σ x +  x dx act on the right.
 ∂x 
Fig.A2.1 Plane differential element subjected to stresses, by Summing forces in the x direction,
Logan
 ∂σx 
∑ Fx =0 =  ∂x + ∂x
dx dy (1) − σxdy (1) + Xb dx dy (1) +

1
 ∂τ yx 
τ + dy dx(1) − τ yx dx(1) = 0
 yx ∂y 
 
Simplifying and canceling term in Eq. 1, obtained

∂σ x ∂τ yx
+ + Xb = 0 2
∂x ∂y
Summing forces in the y direction

∂σ y ∂τ xy
+ + Yb = 0 3
∂y ∂x
Three equilibrium equations must be satisfied, when considering only planar element. The third
equation is equilibrium of moments about an axis normal to the x-y plane; taking moment about point
C in figure A2.1.

,
dx  ∂τ  dx dy
∑ Mx =0 = τ xy dy (1) + τ xy + xy dx  − τ yx dx(1) −
∂x
 ∂τ 2  dy  2 2 4
τ yx + yx dy 
 ∂y  2
Simplifying Eq.4 and neglecting higher –order term yields

τ xy = τ yx 5
Considering the three-dimensional state of stress (figure A2.2), which shows the additional stresses
σ z , τ xz and τ yz .
Extended the two dimensional equations 2, 3 and 5 to three dimensions, esulting total set of
equilibrium equations is
∂σ x ∂τ xy ∂τ xz
+ + + Xb = 0
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂τ xy ∂σ y ∂τ yz
+ + + Yb = 0
∂x ∂y ∂z
∂τ xz ∂τ yz ∂σ z
+ + + Zb = 0 6
∂x ∂y ∂z
σ The simplified equation is
τ τ xy = τ yx
τ
τ
τ τ τ xz = τ zx 7
τ σ
σ
τ yz = τ zy
Fig.A2.2 Three-dimensional stress element, by Logan

,
2. Strain/Displacement and Compatibility Equations

Considering the differential element shown
in figure A2.3, the un-deformed state is
represented by the dotted lines and
deformed shape is represented by the solid
lines. Considering line element AB in the x
direction, and A’B’ after deformation,
where u an v represented the displacement
in the x and y directions.
Fig.A2.3 Differential element before and after deformation,

by Logan
A' B'− AB
εx = 1.1 AB = dx
AB
1.2
2 2
2  ∂u   ∂v 
( A' B' ) =  dx + dx  +  dx  1.3
 ∂x   ∂x 
Evaluating A’B’ using the binomial theorem and neglecting the higher-order term
2 2
 ∂u   ∂v 
  and   , it has
 ∂x   ∂x 
∂u
A' B ' = dx + dx 1.4
∂x
Using Eqs. 1.2 and 1.4 in Eqs. 1.1, obtained
∂u
εx = 1.5
∂x
Similarly, line element AD in y direction is
∂u
εy = 1.6
∂y
The shear strain is defined to be the changed in the angle between two lines, such as AB and AD.
From figure A2.2 that the shear strain γ xy is the sum of two angles and is given by
∂u ∂v
γ xy = + 1.7
∂y ∂x

,
Equations 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 represent the strain/displacement relationship for in-plane behaviour. For
the three dimensional, a displacement w in the z direction, than becomes straightforward the
additional strain/displacement equation as
∂w
εz = 1.8
∂z
∂u ∂w
γ xz = + 1.9
∂z ∂x
∂v ∂w
γ yz = + 1.10
∂z ∂y
For the planar-elastic case, the compatibility equation by differentiating γ xy with respect to both x
and y, and then using the definitions for ε x and ε y given by Eqs. 1.5 and 1.6 so that:
∂ 2γ xy∂ 2 ∂u
2
∂ 2 ∂v ∂ ε x ∂ ε y
2
= + = + 1.11
∂x∂y ∂x∂y ∂y ∂x∂y ∂x ∂y 2 ∂x 2
This equation is called the condition of compatibility.
Appendix 3
1. The result of simulation models under laminar flows problem
A. Single Cooling Tower (4Wall)
111841 mesh volume

Fig. A3.1. a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan (Coded De1)

,
23758 nodes element

Fig. A3.1. b Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from side elevation
Fig. A3.1. c Diagram pressure coefficient in distance position of the model to the sources

,
Fig. A3.1.d Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.2 H ~ 32 m (Plane-5)
Fig. A3.1.e Diagram pressure coefficient at z =0.2 H ~ 32 m (Plane-5)

,
Fig. A3.1.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6)
Fig. A3.1.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z =0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6)

,
Fig. A3.1.h Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.7 H ~ 112 m (Plane-7)
Fig. A3.1.i Diagram pressure coefficient at z =0.7 H ~ 112 m (Plane-7)

,
B. Single Sphere h/D = ¼ (4Wall)
86506 mesh volume

Fig. A3.2.a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan (Coded De2)
18603 nodes element

Fig. A3.2.b Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from side elevation

,
Fig. A3.2.c Diagram pressure coefficient in distance position of the model to the sources.
C. Single Sphere h/D = ½ (4Wall)
120838 mesh volume


,
25504 nodes element

D. Multiple Sphere (4Wall)
163452 mesh volume


,
34762 nodes element


,
163452 mesh volume

34762 nodes element


,
E. Multiple Cooling Tower (4Wall)
229257 mesh volume

Fig. A3.5. a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan (Coded De5)
48695 nodes element


,

,
Fig. A3.5.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 58.5 m (Plane-6)

,
Fig. A3.5.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z =0.45 H ~ 58.5 m (Plane-6)

,
F. Single Sphere h/D = 1/6 (4Wall)
93135 mesh volume


,
19135 nodes element

2. The result of simulation models under turbulent flows problem (LES-

Smagorinsky &Lilly)
A. Multiple Cooling Tower (3Wall)

,
112827 meshes volume

Fig. A31.1. a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan (Coded LESDe11)
2393158 nodes element


,

,
Fig. A31.1.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6)

,
Fig. A31.1.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z =0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6)

,
B. Single Sphere h/D = ¼ (3Wall)
85392 meshes volume

Fig. A31.2.a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan (Coded LESDe21)

,
18413 nodes element

C. Single Sphere h/D = ½ (3Wall)

,

25519 nodes element


,


,
34683 nodes element

E. Multiple Cooling Tower (3Wall)

,
29765 mesh volume

Fig. A31.5. a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan (Coded LESDe51)
15042 nodes element


,

,

,
Fig. A31.5.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 58.5 m (Plane-6)
Fig. A31.5.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z =0.45 H ~ 58.5 m (Plane-6)

,

,
F. Single Sphere h/D = 1/6 (3Wall)
92894 meshes volume

19290 nodes element


,
3. The result of simulation models under turbulent flows problem (LES-

RANS)
A. Single Sphere h/D = ½ (3Wall)

Fig. A32.3.a Pressure coefficient contour of the whole body from the top of plan (Coded RANSDe31)

,
25519 nodes element

Diagram Pressure Coefficient of Single sphere h/D=1/2 Model

,
Pressure Coefficient of Single sphere h/D=1/2 Model Convert to Angle Data

,

,
Diagram Pressure Distribution of Single Cooling Tower Model

,
Pressure Coefficient of Single Cooling Tower Model Convert to Angle Data

,
Diagram Pressure Distribution of Single Cooling Tower Model around throat of Plane 5 =Z1/H=0.2 =32m

,

,
Pressure Coefficient of Single Cooling Tower around throat of Plane 5 =Z1/H=0.2 =32m Convert to Angle
Data

,

,

,
Pressure Coefficient of Single Cooling Tower around throat of Plane 6 =Z2/H=045 =72m Convert to Angle
Data

,

,

,

Predicting Pressure Distributions Using CFD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Predicting Pressure Distributions Using CFD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

,

University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Dept. of Civil Eng. Structural Eng.

Predicting Pressure Distributions on Surfaces of Arbitrary Geometry from CFD –

I Gede Adi Susila

Thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering

Newcastle upon Tyne

Wind Loading on a Fabric Structure 1

Predicting Pressure Distributions on Surfaces of Arbitrary Geometry

Table of Mean pressure coefficient around the

Wind Loading on a Fabric Structure 2

Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2. Literature Review................................................................................. 5

Chapter 3. Numerical Methods .............................................................................. 44

Wind Loading on a Fabric Structure 3

3.4.1 Single Cooling Tower Model ............................................................ 70

Chapter 4. Experimental Methods......................................................................... 101

Chapter 5. Conclusions ........................................................................................... 115

Wind Loading on a Fabric Structure 4

5.3 Wind loading test on CFD method ............................................................. 115

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................... 119

Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................... 120

Appendix 3 ............................................................................................................... 123

Appendix 4 ............................................................................................................... 149

Wind Loading on a Fabric Structure 5

Figure 2.1.Static behaviour and various types of suspended roof ............................. 6

Figure 2.13. La-Plata Stadium by Rocha cs, & included Figure2.14-15.................. 13

Figure 2.23 Structural section, Park Dome Kumamoto (1999)................................. 22

Figure 2.25 Visual Post-processing, Voogt (1990).................................................... 24

Figure 2.26 Stubwing and pressure measurement Voogt (1990)............................... 24

Wind Loading on a Fabric Structure 6

Figure2.37 Computational model of the AIJ project by Tamura,cs. ......................... 33

Figure 2.40 Heler-type dry-cooling tower, by Su,cs. ................................................ 35

Figure 2.43. Experimental planning and execution process diagram........................ 38

Figure 2.44. Representative data flow. ...................................................................... 39

Figure 2.45 Dome geometry and coordinate system, by Uematsu............................ 40

Wind Loading on a Fabric Structure 7

C’p H/D =1/4, by Uematsu................................................................. 40

Figure3.1 Three-dimensional stress on an element, by Logan .................................. 45

Figure 3.2 Tetrahedral solid element, by Logan........................................................ 46

Figure 3.5 Stress components in the x-direction, by Versteeg & Malalasekera........ 56

Figure 3.8 by Potts (MMM336) ................................................................................ 60

Figure 3.9 by Potts (MMM336) ................................................................................ 60

Figure 3.10 Example mesh geometric in AutoCAD.................................................. 63

Figure 3.15.a Sphere Elevation.................................................................................. 69

Figure 3.15.b Cooling Tower Elevation .................................................................... 69

Figure 3.16 Computational domain development ..................................................... 69

Wind Loading on a Fabric Structure 8

Figure 3.18 Internal count space................................................................................ 70

Figure 3.19 Domain of Single Cooling Tower .......................................................... 71

Figure 3.20 Computational region and coordinate system. ....................................... 71

Figure 3.21. Surface mesh on rear of cooling tower ................................................. 72

Figure 3.22 Brick and Cooling tower ........................................................................ 73

Figure 3.26.d Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.2 H ~ 32 m (Plane-5) . 79

Figure 3.26.e Diagram pressure coefficient at z =0.2 H ~ 32 m (Plane-5)................ 79

Figure 3.26.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6) 80

Figure 3.26.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6) ............ 80

Figure 3.26.h Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.7 H ~ 112 m (Plane-7) 81

Figure 3.26.i Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.7 H ~ 112 m (Plane-7) ............. 81

Wind Loading on a Fabric Structure 9

Figure 3.27.d Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.2 H ~ 32 m (Plane-5) . 83

Figure 3.27.e Diagram pressure coefficient at z =0.2 H ~ 32 m (Plane-5)................ 83

Figure 3.27.f Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6) 84

Figure 3.27.g Diagram pressure coefficient at z = 0.45 H ~ 72 m (Plane-6) ............ 84

Figure 3.27.h Pressure coefficient contour occurred at z = 0.7 H ~ 112 m (Plane-7) 85