## 3 Initial and Boundary Conditions  
The inlet velocity profile is described by the logarithmic law of the wall with a free-stream velocity value of 10.13 m/s. Figure 2 presents the normalized velocity profiles at both the inlet of the computational domain and in the X/H = 2 position from the inlet for Scenarios A-C, where A and B should be identical. As observed in Figure 2a, an important deviation appears in Scenario C that corresponds to the application of the meteorological model in comparison with the other two scenarios. This difference appears also in the free-stream flow region and is caused by the strong buoyancy effects caused by the increased thermal heating of the air. As shown in Figure 3, the present numerical results for the pressure coefficient are in good agreement with the corresponding experimental data of Scenarios A and B.  
Figure 2: Normalized velocity profiles at the (**a**) inlet of the computational domain and (**b**) \(\mathrm{X/H=2}\) position from the inlet for Scenarios A–C [44; 54]. The pressure coefficient at the surfaces of the building for all scenarios is defined as:  
\[C_{P}=\frac{p-p_{REF}}{\frac{1}{2}\rho_{REF}u_{\infty}^{2}} \tag{15}\]  
where \(p\) is the static pressure of the fluid at a point, \(p_{REF}\) and \(\rho_{REF}\) are the static pressure and density of the fluid at the free-stream at the inlet of the computational domain, respectively, and \(u_{\infty}\) is the free-stream velocity at the inlet. As observed in Figure 3, important differences exist between Scenarios A-C because of the heating of the surfaces of the building and the microclimate model application. The pressure coefficient distribution on the frontal surface of the building for Scenarios B and C is higher than the corresponding for Scenario A because of the influence of the mixed convection heat transfer, which causes reduction on the density of the streamlines in this region. In Scenario C, this influence is expected to be larger than for Scenario B. In Scenario B, the pressure distribution at the rear surface of the building significantly approaches the corresponding for Scenario A. In Scenario C, the pressure distribution at the rear surface of the building is the highest compared with other scenarios because of the domination of the buoyant heating forces there. Figure 4 presents the vertical profile of the turbulent kinetic energy at the inlet of the computational domain for Scenarios A-C, as compared with the corresponding numerical data on the same normalized upstream position from the cube [18]. As described in Figure 4, the turbulent kinetic energy distribution at the inlet of the computational domain is almost identical for Scenarios A and B and different from Scenario C because of the effect of the buoyancy forces from the microclimate conditions. Figure 3: Pressure coefficient distribution at the building’s symmetry plane for Scenarios A–C [4, 44, 54]. On the lateral boundaries of the computational domain, periodic boundary conditions are employed because of the temporal and spatial periodicity of the flow. Neumann boundary conditions are used for the turbulent kinetic energy \((\varepsilon)\), temperature \((\theta)\), and the perturbation pressure \((p^{*})\) to calculate the following equations concerning the building's height:  
\[\overline{\varepsilon}\biggl{(}-\frac{\Delta y}{2}\biggr{)}=\overline{ \varepsilon}\biggl{(}+\frac{\Delta y}{2}\biggr{)} \tag{16}\]  
Figure 4: Turbulent kinetic energy at the inlet of the computational domain for Scenarios A–C [18; 44]. \[\overline{\theta}\bigg{(}-\frac{\Delta y}{2}\bigg{)}=\overline{\theta}\bigg{(}+ \frac{\Delta y}{2}\bigg{)} \tag{17}\]  
\[\overline{p^{*}}\bigg{(}-\frac{\Delta y}{2}\bigg{)}=\overline{p^{*}}\bigg{(}+ \frac{\Delta y}{2}\bigg{)} \tag{18}\]  
The Dirichlet boundary condition is used for the velocity at the ground of the computational domain for the no-slip condition.