## 3 Numerical Study
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & **Mean** & **Std** & **Mean + 3 Std** & **Max** & **99 th Percentile** \\ \hline
**HFM** & & & & & \\ \(A_{x}\) [m/s\({}^{2}\)] & \(1.67\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.32\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.96\times 10^{-1}\) & \(4.34\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.04\times 10^{-1}\) \\ \(A_{y}\) [m/s\({}^{2}\)] & \(-1.42\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.17\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.52\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.73\times 10^{-1}\) & \(2.73\times 10^{-1}\) \\ \(A_{r}z\) [rad/s\({}^{2}\)] & \(-2.34\times 10^{-7}\) & \(1.30\times 10^{-3}\) & \(3.90\times 10^{-3}\) & \(4.96\times 10^{-3}\) & \(3.22\times 10^{-3}\) \\ \hline
**LFM** & & & & & \\ \(A_{x}\) [m/s\({}^{2}\)] & \(1.60\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.41\times 10^{-1}\) & \(4.25\times 10^{-1}\) & \(4.21\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.32\times 10^{-1}\) \\ \(A_{y}\) [m/s\({}^{2}\)] & \(-2.04\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.14\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.43\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.65\times 10^{-1}\) & \(2.69\times 10^{-1}\) \\ \(A_{r}z\) [rad/s\({}^{2}\)] & \(-5.15\times 10^{-7}\) & \(1.30\times 10^{-3}\) & \(3.90\times 10^{-3}\) & \(4.39\times 10^{-3}\) & \(3.23\times 10^{-3}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of HFM and LFM—acceleration at the top for 2.5% damping and 0° angle of wind. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & **Mean** & **Std** & **Mean + 3 Std** & **Max** & **99 th Percentile** \\ \hline
**HFM** & & & & & \\ \(A_{x}\) [m/s\({}^{2}\)] & \(1.67\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.32\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.96\times 10^{-1}\) & \(4.34\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.04\times 10^{-1}\) \\ \(A_{y}\) [m/s\({}^{2}\)] & \(-1.42\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.17\times  
Figure 5: Top-floor displacement—comparison of HFM and LFM for two angles of wind and damping ratio \(\zeta\) = 2.5%. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Mean** & **Std** & **Mean + 3 Std** & **Max** & **99 th Percentile** \\ \hline
**HFM** & & & & & \\ Fx [MN] & \(8.94\times 10^{0}\) & \(4.11\times 10^{0}\) & \(2.13\times 10^{1}\) & \(2.49\times 10^{1}\) & \(1.92\times 10^{1}\) \\ Fy [MN] & \(-5.46\times 10^{-2}\) & \(3.67\times 10^{0}\) & \(1.09\times 10^{1}\) & \(1.41\times 10^{1}\) & \(8.78\times 10^{0}\) \\ Fz [MN] & \(-3.71\times 10^{2}\) & \(4.59\times 10^{1}\) & \(-2.34\times 10^{2}\) & \(-1.73\times 10^{-1}\) & \(8.47\times 10^{1}\) \\ Mx [MNm] & \(3.25\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.26\times 10^{2}\) & \(9.77\times 10^{2}\) & \(9.70\times 10^{2}\) & \(8.14\times 10^{2}\) \\ My [MNm] & \(8.72\times 10^{2}\) & \(3.60\times 10^{2}\) & \(1.95\times 10^{3}\) & \(1.85\times 10^{3}\) & \(1.66\times 10^{3}\) \\ Moz [MNm] & \(2.84\times 10^{-1}\) & \(1.62\times 10^{1}\) & \(4.90\times 10^{1}\) & \(5.63\times 10^{1}\) & \(4.01\times 10^{1}\) \\ \hline
**LFM** & & & & & \\ Fx [MN] & \(8.85\times 10^{0}\) & \(3.21\times 10^{0}\) & \(1.85\times 10^{1}\) & \(1.79\times 10^{1}\) & \(1.57\times 10^{1}\) \\ Fy [MN] & \(1.21\times 10^{-2}\) & \(2.81\times 10^{0}\) & \(8.45\times 10^{0}\) & \(8.12\times 10^{0}\) & \(6.59\times 10^{0}\) \\ Fz [MN] & \(-3.67\times 10^{2}\) & \(4.60\times 10^{1}\) & \(-2.29\times 10^{2}\) & \(0.00\times 10^{0}\) & \(-8.09\times 10^{1}\) \\ Mx [MNm] & \(9.93\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.11\times 10^{2}\) & \(9.34\times 10^{2}\) & \(9.70\times 10^{2}\) & \(7.71\times 10^{2}\) \\ My [MNm] & \(8.53\times 10^{2}\) & \(3.60\times 10^{2}\) & \(1.93\times 10^{3}\) & \(1.93\times 10^{3}\) & \(1.64\times 10^{3}\) \\ Moz [MNm] & \(3.27\times 10^{-1}\) & \(1.34\times 10^{1}\) & \(4.06\times 10^{1}\) & \(4.55\times 10^{1}\) & \(3.24\times 10^{1}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of HFM and LFM—base reactions for 2.5% damping and 0° angle of wind. Figure 6: Top-floor acceleration—comparison of HFM and LFM for two angles of wind and damping ratio \(\zeta=2.5\%\). Figure 7: Base reaction responses—comparison of HFM and LFM for angle 0 and damping ratio \(\zeta=2.5\%\).