The construction of tall buildings in urban areas has grown in number in recent years. However, architects and engineers face a variety of design challenges due to the variety of heights and shapes of new building designs. This study evaluates the impact of shape mitigation on tall buildings by applying corner modifications, such as chamfered, corner cut, plan changes with height, tapered, and setback, and combining a single modification model. The numerical simulations were carried out using Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) simulation with the RNG k-ε type of turbulence model. All single modifications reduced the maximum +C_p and -C_p better than the basic model. The corner-cut model was the most effective method for reducing the suction effect. Combining the setback, chamfering the corner, and twisting the building model at 45° modification was the most effective approach to reduce the maximum +C_p in the 25–42.10% range in Face 1. Modifying a square model with the combination of setback, chamfer, and 45° rotation reduced the maximum -C_p, ranging from 36.9–50%. The composite 1 model and composite 2 model reduced the suction effect in the range of 15.38–33.33% in Face 3. The adoption of composite modification was insignificant in reducing the suction effect on the sidewall, where the maximum -C_p was recorded to be between 3.62–5.43%.

• Ahsan, M. (2014). Numerical analysis of friction factor for a fully developed turbulent flow using k-ε turbulent model with enhanced wall treatment. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 3(4), 269-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjbas.2014.12.001

• Bandi, E. K., Tamura, Y., Yoshida, A., Kim, Y. C., & Yang, Q. S. (2013). Experimental investigation on aerodynamic characteristics of various triangular section highrise buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 122, 60-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2013.07.002

• Bitsuamlak, G. T., Warsido, W., Ledesma, E., & Chowdhury, A. G. (2013). Aerodynamic mitigation of roof and wall Corner suctions using simple architectural elements. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 139(3), 396-408. https://doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000505

• Bhattacharjee, S., Banerjee, S., Majumdar, S., Saptaparni, S. G., Dey, A., & Sanyal, P. (2021). Effects of irregularity on a butterfly plan-shaped tall building under wind load. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, 102, 451-467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-021-00511-6

• Dagnew, A. K., Bitsuamalk, G. T., & Merrick, R. (2009, June 22-26). A Computational evaluation of wind pressures on tall buildings using LES. In 11th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering (pp 1-17). San Juan, Puerto Rico. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2014.18.5.567

• Deraman, S. N. C., Majid, T. A., Zaini, S. S., Yahya, W. N. W., Abdullah, J., & Ismail, M. A. (2018). Enhancement of CFD validation exercise along the roof profile of a low-rise building. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 140, No. 1, p. 012004). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1755-1315/140/1/012004

• Elshaer, A., Bitsuamlak, G., & Damatty, A. E. (2014, June 1-4). Wind load reductions due to building corner modifications. In 22nd Annual conference of the CFD society of Canada (pp. 1-5). Toronto, Canada.

• Elshaer, A., Bitsuamlak, G., & El Damatty, A. (2016, June 7-11). Aerodynamic shape optimization of tall buildings using twisting and corner modifications. In 8th International Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and Applications Northeastern University (pp. 1-8). Boston, MA, USA.

• Franke, J., Hirsch, C., Jensen, A. G., Krus, H. W., Schatzmann, M., Westbury, P. S., Miles, S. D., Wisse, J. A., & Wright, N. G. (2004, May 5-7). Recommendations on the use of CFD in wind engineering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Urban Wind Engineering and Building Aerodynamics (pp. C.1.1-C1.11). von Karman Institute, Sint-Genesius-Rode, Belgium.

• Gu, M., & Quan, Y. (2004). Across wind loads of typical tall buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 92(13), 1147-1165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2004.06.004

• Hajra, S., & Dalui, S. K. (2016). Wind interference effect on an octagonal plan shaped tall building due to square plan shaped tall buildings. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, 10(4), 462-479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40091-016-0115

• Hansora, A. G., Gehlot, K. P., & Nimodiya, P. N. (2015). Numerical analysis of wind loads on tapered shape tall buildings. International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering, 1(11), 92-97.

• Holmes, J. D. (2001). Wind loading of structures: Wind Loading of Structures (1st ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203301647

• Holmes, J. D. (2015). Wind loading of structures (3rd ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18029

• Huang, S., Li, Q. S., & Xu, S. (2009). Numerical evaluation of wind effects on a tall steel building by CFD. Journal of Construction Steel Research, 63(5), 612-627 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.06.033

• Irwin, P. A. (2008). Bluff body aerodynamics in wind engineering. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 96, 701-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2007.06.008

• Irtaza H., Agarwal, A., & Shahab K. (2021). Comparison of aerodynamic loads on prismatic and twisted tall buildings using computational fluid dynamics. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, 102, 635-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40032-021-00694-8

• Khan, M. M., & Roy, A. K. (2017). CFD simulation of wind effects on industrial RCC chimney in civil engineering Conference-Innovation for sustainability. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), 8(1), 1008-1020.

• Liu, J., & Niu, J. (2016). CFD Simulation of the wind environment around an isolated high-rise building: An evaluation os SRANS, LES and DES models. Journal of Building and Enviroment, 96, 91-106.

• Meng, F. Q., He, B. J., Zhu, J., Zhao D. X., Darko, A., & Zhao, Z. Q., (2017). Sensitivity analysis of wind pressure coefficients on CAARC standard tall buildings in CFD Simulations. Journal of Building Engineering, 16, 146-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.01.004

• Montazeri, H., & Blocken B. (2013). CFD simulation of wind induced pressure coefficient on buildings with and without balconies: validation and sensitivity analysis. Journal of Building and Environtment, 60, 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.11.012

• Mou, B., He, B. J., Zhao, D. X., & Chau K. W., (2017). Numerical simulation of the effects of building dimensional variation on wind pressure distribution. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 11, 293-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2017.1281845

• Richards, P. J., Hoxey, R. P., Connell, B. D., & Lander, D. P. (2007). Wind-tunnel modelling of the Silsoe Cube. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 95, 1384-1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2007.02.005

• Sanyal, P., & Dalui, S. K. (2020). Comparison of aerodynamic coefficients of various types of Y-plan shaped tall buildings. Asian Journal Civil Engineering, 21(7), 1109-1127. https://doi.10.1007/s42107-018-0018-3

• Sharma, A., Mittal, H., & Gairola, A. (2017, December 3-7). Investigation of aerodynamic forces on highrise buildings with setback modification. In 9th Asia-Pacific Conference, Wind Engineering (pp. 1-4). Auckland New Zealand.

• Tse, K. T., Hitchcock, P. A., Kwok, K. C. S., Thepmongkorn, S., & Chan, C. M. (2012). Economic perspectives of aerodynamic treatments of square tall buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 97(9-10), 455-467. https://doi:10.1016/J.JWEIA.2009.07.005

• Tominaga, Y., Mochida, A., Yoshie, R., Kataoka, H., Nozu, T., Yoshikawa, M., & Shirasawa, T. (2008). AIJ guidelines for practical applications of CFD to pedestrian wind environment around buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 96(10-11), 1749-1761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2008.02.058

• Tominaga, Y. (2015). Air flow around isolated gable-roof buildings with different roof pitches: Wind tunnel experiments and CFD simulations. Building and Environments, 84, 204-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.11.012