## 1 Introduction
### Grid Sensitivity and Validation of the Model  
In order to verify that the simulation results are not affected by grid resolution, a grid sensitivity analysis was conducted on the generic building model using three different grid structures consisting of 1,895,087 (coarse grid), 3,251,493 (medium grid), and 4,454,122 (fine grid) cells, respectively. In the simulations performed with these grid structures, the variable U represents the velocity vector in the flow field, while U\({}_{\text{ref}}\) = 6.97 m/s refers to the reference wind speed measured at the building height. Figure 4 presents the wind speed ratio profiles (U/U\({}_{\text{ref}}\)) along the flow direction on the centerline for each grid resolution, together with the results obtained from the PIV experiment conducted by [PERSON] et al. [9]. The comparison clearly shows that the simulation results obtained with the fine grid (Grid C) provide the closest agreement with the experimental data. Therefore, the fine grid structure was adopted for all subsequent simulations in this study.  
Before starting the natural ventilation analyses to be conducted within the scope of this study, a test model without window openings was created for model validation. The variation in pressure coefficient (C\({}_{\text{P}}\)) values across the surfaces of this building model was compared with the experimental results obtained by [PERSON] et al. [54], and this comparison is presented in Figure 5. On Wall I, the surface where the air first hits and slows down, C\({}_{\text{P}}\) was positive in both studies and showed an increasing trend. As the flow moved from Wall I to Wall II, a sharp decrease in C\({}_{\text{P}}\) was observed due to the flow separating from the corner, and it became negative. A slight increase in C\({}_{\text{P}}\) was observed in Wall III, while no significant change was observed in Wall IV compared to other regions. When the regions are compared with each other, the C\({}_{\text{P}}\) values obtained from the experimental results are slightly higher in Wall I and Wall II, while the numerical analysis results show higher values in Wall III and Wall IV. Overall, there is satisfactory agreement between the results obtained from CFD analysis and experimental data in terms of trends. Although some deviations in the absolute C\({}_{\text{P}}\) values are observed, the basic flow characteristics and pressure change trends have been successfully captured by CFD. This indicates that the numerical modeling performed is generally consistent with the experimental findings in the literature and provides a reliable analysis. Figures 6 and 7 present the results of the streamlines and pressure coefficient distributions obtained numerically in this study and [PERSON] et al. [54], respectively. When the distribution of the streamline around the building in Figure 6 is analyzed, a large recirculation zone is detected at the rear of the building model. In addition, a smaller recirculation zone is formed at the lower corner of the building on the windward side. The pressure coefficient distributions in Figure 6 show a positive pressure region at the front of the building models, which is interpreted as the blocking effect of the building. As can be seen from the above results, the results obtained in this study are consistent with the results reported by [PERSON] et al. [54]. Consequently, the validation of the model was considered satisfactory, and the solver settings were applied similarly to all scenarios created within the scope of the study.  
Figure 4: Comparison of grid resolutions with results of experimental study [9].  
Figure 5: Comparison of the C\({}_{\rm p}\) distributions in the building model [54].  
Figure 6: Streamline distribution (**a**) this study and (**b**) [PERSON] et al. [54].  
Figure 7: Contours of pressure coefficient distribution (**a**) this study and (**b**) [PERSON] et al. [54].