風力對高層建築物的反應為高層建築物設計中重要的一環，本研究以建築物之間風力所造成的干擾效應影響比較為中心，比較氣動力實驗與氣彈力實驗結果在干擾效應影響下的差異性。實驗分為三個部分，第一部分為探討干擾效應下氣動力實驗─風壓量測法之建物整體平均風力係數、擾動風力係數與風力干擾因子；第二部分為比較不同風速與流場之干擾效應下氣彈力實驗─位移量測法之位移擾動值與位移干擾因子；第三部分為比較第一部分與第二部分之相同流場下不同實驗方法之干擾效應結果差異。 第一部分之實驗以國內現行規範之B地況作為逼近流場，模型高風速為9.2 m/s，並選用高寬比6、深寬比1的矩柱模型作為結構斷面與干擾建物斷面，共有32組試驗結果，分別為1個無干擾建物的單棟試驗與31個干擾位置的實驗。風壓實驗以數據分析為主，將得到的風壓歷時資料經過轉換後變為風力歷時資料，可進行第一部分之比較。再經時間域與頻率域分析後，將計算所得的結構擾動反應值與第二部分之氣彈力實驗結果的結構擾動反應值做比較，列出誤差值與位移干擾因子並找出差異較大的干擾位置與影響最為劇烈的干擾位置。第二部分為探討A、B、C三種地況、三個不同風速(6.5、9.2、11.6 m/s)下的位移反應比較，實驗方法為氣彈實驗，實驗模型與干擾建物模型皆為高寬比6深寬比1的模型，實驗共32組，分別為1個無干擾建物的單棟試驗與31個干擾位置的實驗。以實驗結果比較各風速下的結構擾動反應與位移干擾因子，歸納出干擾效應下不同流場與風速對高層建築物的結構擾動影響。 研究目的以實驗結果探討，在不同的實驗方法中所得到的結構擾動反應值之變化是否相同，誤差值大小與不同干擾位置之影響大小。並且期望能在氣彈力實驗中找出氣動力實驗無法預估的結構氣彈力現象。當結構物因風力而產生振動時兩棟建築物之間的交互影響作用是靜定氣動力實驗無法預測的，本研究期望能探討在不同風速與流場下，結構物的氣彈力現象之位移反應變化與干擾效應之影響。 Wind effects on high-rise buildings are one important topic in safety designs, especially the target building is neighbored by another one or even more high-rise buildings. This study intends to compare the differences between the result from aerodynamic test and the result from aeroelastic test. Physical scaling tests are planned in three parts: firstly aerodynamic test is conducted in order to understand mean and fluctuating force coefficients of a square prism model with interference effects; secondly aeroelastic test is conducted in order to examine the displacement variation under various velocities and terrain flows; thirdly results from both tests in common setup are compared to find the differences by four means of displacement estimation methodologies. For the first part, terrain B in Taiwan code is selected for flow simulation. Both the principal and the interfering models are square prism models with aspect ratio of 6. In total there are 32 interference effect cases. Instantaneous pressures over the surfaces of the principal model are measured and integrated into wind forces. For the second, terrain A, B, and C are simulated and three different velocities are adopted for aeroelastic model under interference effects. Displacements are recorded by laser sensors. By performing free vibration test, the model characteristics are found and the mechanical function is defined. Then four methodologies, time domain analysis, frequency domain analysis, estimation by background component and resonant component, and direct displacement record, are performed in the third part. It is found that, adopting aerodynamic test for wind-induced response is not reliable compared to aeroelastic test since the wind-induced response with/without interference effects are much more complicated and need more investigations in systematic aeroelastic test work.
