Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 29 (1988) 59-67 59

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

DISTRIBUTION OF PEAK WIND LOADS ON A LOW-RISE BUILDING

J.D. Holmes
CSIRO D i v i s i o n of B u i l d i n g Research, H i g h e t t 3190, V i c t o r i a (Australia)

ABSTRACT

A m u l t i - c h a n n e l pressure measurement system was used t o compute i n s t a n t a n -

eous v a l u e s o f t o t a l loads and load e f f e c t s on a model of a l o w - r i s e b u i l d i n g
in a wind t u n n e l . In a d d i t i o n the instantaneous pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n s produc-
ing the peak loads and e f f e c t s were preserved using a c o n d i t i o n a l sampling
t e c h n i q u e . C o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n in these instantaneous pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n s
was found, suggesting t h a t i f a s i n g l e d i s t r i b u t i o n i s used f o r d e s i g n , i t must
be a c o n s e r v a t i v e one f o r most e f f e c t s .

INTRODUCTION

Low-rise b u i l d i n g s , domestic, i n d u s t r i a l and commercial, have t r a d i t i o n a l l y

been designed f o r wind l o a d i n g by design Standards and Codes of P r a c t i c e , based
on a q u a s i - s t e a d y assumption and making use of mean or steady f l o w pressure
coefficients (e.g. ref.1). However, s e v e r a l wind tunnel s t u d i e s i n c l u d i n g those
on i n d u s t r i a l buildings (ref.2) and domestic houses ( r e f . 3 } c a r r i e d out w i t h i n
the l a s t ten y e a r s , have emphasised the importance of n a t u r a l wind t u r b u l e n c e
and l o c a l v o r t e x shedding in g e n e r a t i n g pressure and load f l u c t u a t i o n s , and
peaks of s h o r t d u r a t i o n and l a r g e magnitude, in both e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l
pressures. Comprehensive reviews o f recent work on wind loads on l o w - r i s e
b u i l d i n g s have been given by Holmes ( r e f . 4 ) and S t a t h o p o u l o s ( t e l . B ) .

In the study on i n d u s t r i a l b u i l d i n g s , conducted at the U n i v e r s i t y of Western

Ontario (ref.2), an o n - l i n e computer w e i g h t i n g technique was used t o determine
directly the load e f f e c t s induced in s t r u c t u r a l frames by f l u c t u a t i n g wind
loads. A p p r o p r i a t e i n f l u e n c e c o e f f i c i e n t s for total bay f o r c e s and bending
moments were a p p l i e d t o s e v e r a l s i m u l t a n e o u s l y sampled panel loads, each
d e r i v e d by p n e u m a t i c a l l y a v e r a g i n g a number of pressure t a p p i n g s w i t h i n a
r e c t a n g u l a r panel ( r e f s 2 , 6 ) . This approach produced peak v a l u e s of v a r i o u s
total loads and s t r u c t u r a l effects in a time p e r i o d e q u i v a l e n t t o about one
hour in f u l l scale.
60

During the University of Western Ontario wind tunnel tests (ref.2), the
instantaneous pressure distributions producing the peak structural effects were
not recorded, and it was necessary to derive 'effective' loading distributions
to 'recapture' the measured peak load effects at a later stage (ref.6).

The present paper describes similar multi-channel pressure measurements on a

low-rise industrial building model at CSIRO, but in this case, the instantan-
eous load distributions producing the peak load effects were recorded, using a
conditional sampling technique.

EXPERIMENTAL

The e x p e r i m e n t a l techniques of atmospheric boundary layer simulation and

p r e s s u r e measurement used in t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y have been d e s c r i b e d fully in
previous or pending publications, and o n l y a b r i e f summary o f t h e methods w i l l
be g i v e n .

The s u r f a c e layer of a strong-wind a t m o s p h e r i c b o u n d a r y l a y e r was s i m u l a t e d

in t h e 2 x 1 m t e s t section o f t h e CSIRO, H i g h e t t , l o w - s p e e d wind t u n n e l . The
system used was t h e b a r r i e r - r o u g h n e s s technique, originally d e s c r i b e d by
Sundaram e t a l . (ref.?). For the present tests, a 200 mm h i g h b a r r i e r followed
by c a r p e t r o u g h n e s s was used t o s i m u l a t e a rural boundary layer (roughness
length, 40 mm) a t 1/200 s c a l e , at a distance o f 8 . 9 m downwind o f t h e b a r r i e r .
The d e v e l o p m e n t and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e f l o w a r e d e s c r i b e d by Holmes and
Osonphasop ( r e f . 8 ) .

A 'perspex' model o f a t y p i c a l low-rise industrial building with nominal

full-scale d i m e n s i o n s shown in F i g . 1 was u s e d . An end bay o f t h e model was
fitted with ?0 p r e s s u r e t a p s c o n n e c t e d i n g r o u p s o f t e n , t o seven a v e r a g i n g
manifolds to produce the instantaneous l o a d s on two w a l l and f i v e roof panels.

Each o f t h e seven a v e r a g i n g m a n i f o l d s was c o n n e c t e d by 400 BB o f f t e x i b l e

PVC t u b i n g to a Honeywell 163 p r e s s u r e s e n s o r . W i t h i n the tubing close to the
transducer, two f i n e diameter restrictors were i n s e r t e d . T h i s system gave an
amplitude frequency response within ±5~ o f u n i t y t o 300 Hz, and a phase r e s -
ponse c l o s e t o l i n e a r t o t h e same f r e q u e n c y . The d e v e l o p m e n t and c a l i b r a t i o n of
t h e system i s d e s c r i b e d in detail by Holmes and Lewi s ( r e f s 9,10).

The s i g n a l s from t h e seven H o n e y w e l l s e n s o r s c o n n e c t e d t o p a n e l s on t h e

model, and an a d d i t i o n a l one c o n n e c t e d t o a p i t o t - s t a t i c tube, mounted n e a r t h e
 61

oo

24m J

45 °
90 °

Fig. 1. Full-scale d i m e n s i o n s and wind d i r e c t i o n s .

t o p o f t h e wind t u n n e l , were l o w - p a s s f i l t e r e d a t 350 Hz and sampled a t 1000 Hz

by t h e a n a l o g u e - d i g i t a l converters o f a DEC 11 / 44 m i n i c o m p u t e r . Subsequent
signal processing, including correction for zero drifts, conversion to pressure
coefficients, averaging, extraction o f peak v a l u e s , and w e i g h t i n g by s t r u c t u r a l
influence coefficients, was c a r r i e d out with the aid of a commercial laboratory
software package.

Peak p r e s s u r e s can be a t t e n u a t e d if a measurement system o f inadequate

f r e q u e n c y r e s p o n s e i s used ( r e f . 1 1 ) . To g a i n an i d e a o f t h e adequacy o f t h e
measurement system used i n t h e p r e s e n t s y s t e m , digital low-pass filtering was
applied to the panel pressure records obtained in the present st udy. Reductions
i n a v e r a g e peaks o f 1 . 2 and 1 . ? t for windw ard w a l l and r o o f pressures, respect-
ively, were o b t a i n e d when a 200 Hz f i l t e r was a p p l i e d . However t h e s e r e d u c t i o n s
i n c r e a s e d t o 3 . 5 and 5 . 8 t when a 100 Hz f i l t e r was a p p l i e d . The s m a l l reduction
a t 200 Hz a p p e a r s t o i n d i c a t e that t h e 300 Hz s y s t e m , e q u i v a l e n t t o a b o u t 6 Hz
at full-scale d e s i g n wind s p e e d s , i s a d e q u a t e . The r e d u c t i o n i n peak p a n e l
pressures obtained agreed well with the attenuation - full-scale wave number
relationship for panel pressures for a flat roof model b u i l d i n g o b t a i n e d by
Holmes ( r e f . 1 1 ) .

BASIC PRESSURE AND FORCE COEFFICIENTS

Panel p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t s
For the three wind directions studied, the basic panel pressure coefficients
defined with respect t o t h e dynamic p r e s s u r e based on t h e mean wind speed a t
t h e model w a l l height (24 mm) a t t h e c e n t r e of the turntable i n t h e absence o f
t h e model, ape shown i n F i g . 2. The v a l u e s shOWn a r e a v e r a g e s o v e r many 11.5
second r e p e a t e d r u n s , each e q u i v a l e n t t o a b o u t 10 m i n u t e s f u l l - s c a l e duration.
V a l u e s a r e shown as mean, r o o t - m e a n - s q u a r e - f l u c t u a t i n g , maximum and minimum
values, d e n o t e d by : - , ', ~ and v , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
62

I I I
0o -'59 -'23 I -'35 I -'20 I -.15
I I I
'21 .12 I "14 1 ,11 I ,10

-1.70 -'76 II -.97 ]I -'71 II -,61 Cpor (~p

45 o
%
_.,o: _.,4: _.,4 _.,4 Cp
,16 I .13 I .18 I .17 ,16 .14 c>
-1.27 -,97 I-1'41 I-1.35 -1.25 ] Cp o,~p

90 o

-'46 -'51 I -'62 I I I Cp

I-,.L,-,.,: 301__1
I = I l I I
I .19 .19 I .22 I Symmetric I

Fig. 2. Basic panel pressure coefficients.

Positive mean and peak p r e s s u r e s o c c u r o n l y on t h e wi ndwar d w a l l o f t h e end

bay f o r wind d i r e c t i o n s o f 0 ° and 45 ° . High s u c t i o n s o c c u r on t h e r o o f panels
adjacent t o t h e w indw ard w a l l for all directions. The r i d g e o f t h e low p i t c h
(5 ° ) b u i l d i n g has a s i g n i f i c a n t effect o n l y a t t h e 45" w i n d d i r e c t i o n ,
p r o d u c i n g an i n c r e a s e in suction on t h e l e e w a r d s i d e .

Total force coefficients

Coefficients of total horizontal force, Fx, and v e r t i c a l force, F z, a c t i n g
on t h e end bay a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 1. A g a i n t h e s e a r e a v e r a g e d v a l u e s f r o m
many r e p e a t e d w i n d t u n n e l runs. The c o e f f i c i e n t s are defined in terms of the
appropriate projected areas, i.e. the elevation a r e a i n t h e c a s e o f t h e FX
force, and p l a n a r e a f o r t h e Fz f o r c e .

A l s o shown a r e t h e r e c o r d e d v a l u e s f r o m t e s t s at the University of Nestern

Ontario (UNO) on a n e a r l y identical model ( r e f . 2 ) (the numerical values in
T a b l e 1 were k i n d l y supplied by Dr T. S t a t h o p o u l o s ) . T h e r e i s good a g r e e m e n t
between t h e v e r t i c a l force coefficients obtained i n t h e two s e r i e s of tests.
 63

However, the horizontal force c o e f f i c i e n t s from the UWO t e s t s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y

lower than those recorded at CSIRO. The most l i k e l y explanation f o r t h i s is the
d i f f e r e n c e in pressure tap layout on the w a l l s . The UWO models had fewer pres-
sure taps on each wall - f i v e instead of ten, and three of the f i v e were very
close to the ground or the edge o f the w a l l . Thus a pneumatically-averaged
pressure biased low with respect to the true panel load may have occurred.

TABLE 1
Horizontal force coefficients, CFx.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wind d i r e c t i o n CSIRO t e s t s UWO t e s t s

(degrees) - C ' " - C ' "
CFx Fx CFx CFx Fx CFx

0 0.52 0.24 1.73 0.40 0,16 1.44

45 0.80 0.25 2.05 0.69 0,18 1.63
90 0 0.21 0.89 0 0,13 0.64
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vertical force coefficients, CFz.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hind direction CSIRO t e s t s UNO t e s t s

(degrees) - C ' ^ - C ' -
CF z Fz CF z CFz Fz ~F z
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0 0.38 0.13 0.91 0.38 0.12 0.93

45 0.4? 0.15 1.18 0.51 0.14 1.13
90 0.5? 0.18 1.35 0.66 0.17 1.33
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Structural loads
Influence coefficients for a hypothetical fixed-base (portal) frame support-
i n g t h e end bay f o r each p a n e l l o a d were computed. The s t r u c t u r a l effects
c o n s i d e r e d a r e shown i n F i g . 3. The r e s u l t s are presented in the form of
coefficients as f o l l o w s :

V
Vertical Reaction, Cv = . . . . . . . . . .
P U2.btw

H
Horizontal Reaction, CH = . . . . . . . . .
P Q2.bh t

M
B e n d i n g Moment, CH = . . . . . . . . . .
P u~.bw 2
64

where b i s the breadth o f the end bay (8 m in f u l l s c a l e ) , ht i s the t o t a l

h e i g h t t o the top o f the r o o f (5.85 m), and w i s t h e w i d t h o f the b u i l d i n g

(24 m).

Averaged v a l u e s o f t h e mean, r . m . s , fluctuating and peak (maximum or

minimum) c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e g i v e n in Table 2.

i c

HA <
7IT/

v,

Fig. 3. Structural load e f f e c t s .

TABLE 2
Measured l o a d e f f e c t s for fixed-base frame.

Wind d i r e c t i o n - , - - , ^ - , ^
(degrees) CVA CVA CVA CHA CHA CHA CMA CMA CMA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0 0.193 O.O?O 0.51 1.04 0.354 2.67 0.019 0.0068 0.049

45 0.175 0.069 0.52 1.35 0.390 3.13 0.029 0.0086 0.069
90 0,259 0.088 0.65 1.09 0.388 3.00 0.025 0.0090 0.069
...........................................................................

Wind d i r e c t i o n - , ~ - , ^
(degrees) CMB CMB CMB CMc CMC CMc
.....................................................................
0 -0.022 0.0082 -0.0565 0.0096 0.003? 0.0256
45 -0.02? 0.0096 -0.0741 0.0138 0.0048 0.0382
90 -0,035 0.0119 -0.0898 0.0173 0.0059 0.0452
.....................................................................

PEAK-LOAD PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS

Examples o f t h e panel p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e peak v a l u e s

of the total l o a d s and s t r u c t u r a l effects a r e g i v e n in F i g s 4, 5 and 6. These
were o b t a i n e d by s i m u l t a n e o u s l y r e c o r d i n g t h e panel p r e s s u r e s o c c u r r i n g on t h e
seven p a n e l s whenever t h e peak load or e f f e c t occurred. T h i s i s a form of con-
ditional sampling, and t h e v a l u e s o b t a i n e d have been termed ' c o i n c i d e n t peaks'
(ref,12) denoted by ( C p i ) ~, which i n d i c a t e s the value of the pressure coeffi-
cient on panel i when the load o r e f f e c t , X, i s a maximum. As f o r o r d i n a r y
peaks, it i s necessary t o average the c o i n c i d e n t peaks and d i s t r i b u t i o n s

o b t a i n e d o v e r a number o f wind tunnel runs.

 65

t...--~l (Cp)~ x v

~
I p l ...... -1I
P 1
Cp=l.0

(Cp)~,

(Cp)l~c

8 =0 °

F i g , 4. Peak-load pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n s (0 = 0 ° ) .

Also shown in Figs 4 t o 6, are the mean and peak ( l a r g e s t magnitude maximum
or minimum) pressure c o e f f i c i e n t s p r e v i o u s l y shown in F i g . 2. The c o i n c i d e n t
peak panel pressures g e n e r a l l y , but not i n v a r i a b l y , l i e between these two
v a l u e s . The d i s t r i b u t i o n s vary considerably for different loads and e f f e c t s ,
and a s i n g l e s p e c i f i e d d i s t r i b u t i o n t o determine peak loads can t h e r e f o r e o n l y
be a c o n s e r v a t i v e one. The d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r the 90 ° wind d i r e c t i o n ( F i g , 6)
are c l e a r l y non-symmetrical.

CONCLUSIONS

i) T o t a l h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l f o r c e s on the end bay of a l o w - r i s e indus-

trial b u i l d i n g model are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h r e s u l t s p r e v i o u s l y o b t a i n e d a t
the U n i v e r s i t y o f Nestern O n t a r i o using a s i m i l a r o n - l i n e pressure w e i g h t -
ing t e c h n i q u e ,
66

(Cp)#x v

r -- I F- - ~- . . . . -L_cp
~p '

Cp=l.0

(Cp)~,

(Cp)~c

e=/.,5 °

Fig. 5. Peak-load pressure distributions (8 = 4 5 ° ) .

ii) Considerable variation in the instantaneous pressure distributions produc-

i n g t h e peak v a l u e s o f v a r i o u s load effects was f o u n d , and i f a single
distribution i s used f o r design it must be a c o n s e r v a t i v e one f o r most
effects.

REFERENCES

Standards Association of Australia, SAA L o a d i n g Code, P a r t 2: H i n d F o r c e s ,

AS 1170, P a r t 2, 1983.
A.G. D a v e n p o r t , D. S u r r y and T. S t a t h o p o u l o s , H i n d L o a d i n g on L o w - r i s e
B u i l d i n g s : F i n a l R e p o r t on Phases I and I I , U n i v e r s i t y o f Western O n t a r i o ,
Eng. S c i . Res. R e p . , BLNT-SS8-1977, 197?.
J . D . Holmes, H i n d P r e s s u r e s and F o r c e s on T r o p i c a l Houses, A u s t r a l i a n
H o u s i n g R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l , 1980.
J . O . Holmes, H i n d Loads on L o w - r i s e B u i l d i n g s - A Review, CSIRO D i v i s i o n
o f B u i l d i n g R e s e a r c h , 1983.
T. S t a t h o p o u l o s , H i n d Loads on L o w - r i s e B u i l d i n g s - A Review o f t h e S t a t e
o f t h e A r t , E n g i n e e r i n g S t r u c t u r e s , 6 (1984) 119- 135.
D. S u r r y , T. S t a t h o p o u ] o s and A.G. D a v e n p o r t , S i m p l e Measurement
T e c h n i q u e s f o r A r e a H i n d Loads, J o u r n a l o f E n g i n e e r i n g M e c h a n i c s , 109
(1983) 1058-1071.
 6?

N Cp=l.0
,.....--_,

(Cp)~&

(Cp)R,

8=90 °

F i g . 6. Peak-load pressure distributions (8 = 90=).

? T.R. Sundaram, G.R. Ludwig and G.T. S k i n n e r , Modeling o f t h e Turbulence

S t r u c t u r e o f the Atmospheric Surface L a y e r , AIAA J o u r n a l , 10 (1972) ?43-
?50.
8 J.D. Holmes and C. Osonphasop, Flow Behind Two-dimensional B a r r i e r s on a
Roughened Ground P l a n e , and A p p l i c a t i o n s f o r Atmospheric B o u n d a r y - l a y e r
M o d e l l i n g , Proceedings 8th A u s t r a l a s i a n F l u i d Mechanics Conference.
Newcastle, NSN, 1983.
9 J.D. Holmes and R.E. Lewis, O p t i m i z a t i o n o f Dynamic-pressure-measurement
Systems, I - S i n g l e P o i n t Measurements, Journal o f Wind E n g i n e e r i n g and
I n d u s t r i a l Aerodynamics ( i n p r e s s ) .
10 J.D. Holmes and R.E. Lewis, O p t i m i z a t i o n o f Dynamic-pressure-measurement
Systems, I I - P a r a l l e l T u b e - m a n i f o l d Systems, Journal o f Wind E n g i n e e r i n g
and I n d u s t r i a l Aerodynamics ( i n p r e s s ) .
11 J.D. Holmes, E f f e c t o f Frequency Response on Peak Pressure Measurements,
J o u r n a l o f Wind E n g i n e e r i n g and I n d u s t r i a l Aerodynamics, 17 (1984) 1-9.
12 J.D. Holmes, A New Technique f o r t h e D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f S t r u c t u r a l Loads and
E f f e c t s on L o w - r i s e B u i l d i n g s , Proceedings o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Workshop on
Wind Tunnel Modeling C r i t e r i a and Techniques i n C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g
A p p l i c a t i o n s , G a i t h e s b u r g , USA, A p r i l 1982, ed. T.A. R e i n h o l d .