## 5 Results
### Aerodynamic Forces and Risk of Building Damage  
Understanding the aerodynamic forces acting on historical structures is essential for evaluating the long-term impact of wind on building stability. Unlike modern buildings,  
Figure 19: Comparison of Pearson correlation coefficient values in center plane: (**a**) S, (**b**) SSE, (**c**) E, (**d**) NE, (**e**) N.  
heritage structures often lack built-in wind resistance, making them vulnerable to directional wind forces that may cause cumulative stress, cracking, material fatigue, or sudden failure. Therefore, analyzing the distribution and magnitude of wind-induced forces across different directions is vital to identifying areas at higher risk and developing informed conservation strategies. This section presents the results of aerodynamic force analysis under five main wind directions: S, SSE, E, NE, and N. These directions are consistent with Figure 4b. The forces were calculated on the wall of the Temple in three directions: X (across the width), Y (along the length), and Z (vertically). The bar chart in Figure 20 shows the relative distribution of aerodynamic forces acting on the building in these three directions. The results revealed that winds from the South (S) and North (N) strongly impacted the X-direction, contributing approximately 51.70% and 57.61% of the total force, respectively. This suggested there was considerable lateral pressure on the side walls of the building. In the Y-direction, the E wind produced the highest force ratio (91.01%), followed by the NE (63.35%), indicating strong drag forces acting along the length of the structure, which may affect long masonry walls or wooden beams. In the Z-direction, representing vertical pressure or uplift, the major contributions were from the SSE and N winds (38.33% and 41.09%, respectively). These forces should be of concern regarding potential uplift on the roof or weakening of upper wall sections. Considering the actual force values, the SSE direction had a large negative force in the X-direction (\(-\)5449.49 N), suggesting possible suction or reverse airflow near the side walls. In the Y-direction, the E wind produced the strongest force (25,616.18 N), aligning with the high ratio shown in the graph. In the Z-direction, the vertical force was the highest for SSE winds (8538.50 N), followed by NE winds (2283.91 N). These values should be of concern regarding the safety of roof elements and structural joints.  
Figure 20: Ratio and magnitude of aerodynamic forces (in newtons) acting in the X, Y, and Z directions on building walls under various wind conditions.  
Several conclusions can be drawn from the combined analysis of both the percentage ratios and the actual force magnitudes. Lateral forces in the X-direction from S and N winds might cause stress on side walls and architectural features, such as slit windows, which are often more delicate. The E wind presented the highest structural risk along the Y-axis, especially for long unsupported walls. Finally, the SSE and NE wind directions were critical for vertical forces, where uplift might damage the roof structure or dislodge roof tiles over time. These key findings could be extended to support considering options and selecting conservation materials compatible with engineering requirements and heritage conservation regulations. By understanding the directional wind loads and airflow-induced stresses, future conservation planning should be able to more effectively integrate materials and structural solutions that ensure long-term stability, environmental compatibility, and compliance with preservation standards.