CHAPTER C31

WIND TUNNEL PROCEDURE

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anurag Jain on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Wind tunnel testing is specified when a building or other by wind tunnel tests (Cermak 1977; Reinhold 1982; ASCE 1999;
structure contains any of the characteristics defined in Boggs and Peterka 1989).
Sections 27.1.3, 28.1.3, 29.1.3, or 30.1.3 or when the designer Wind tunnel tests frequently measure wind loads that are
wishes to more accurately determine the wind loads. For some significantly lower than required by Chapters 26, 27, 28, 29,
building or structure shapes, wind tunnel testing can reduce the and 30 because of the shape of the building or other structure;
conservatism caused by enveloping of wind loads inherent in the the likelihood that the highest wind speeds occur at directions
Directional Procedure, Envelope Procedure, or Analytical Pro- where the building or structure’s shape or pressure coefficients
cedure for Components and Cladding (C&C). Also, wind tunnel are less than their maximum values; specific buildings or struc-
testing accounts for shielding or channeling and can more tures included in a detailed proximity model that may provide
accurately determine wind loads for a complex building or shielding in excess of that implied by exposure categories; and
structure shape than can the Directional Procedure, Envelope necessary conservatism in enveloping load coefficients in
Procedure, or Analytical Procedure for C&C. It is the intent Chapters 28 and 30. In some cases, adjacent buildings or
of the standard that any building or other structure can be structures may shield the subject building or structure sufficiently
allowed to use the wind tunnel testing method to determine that removal of one or two of the adjacent buildings or structures
wind loads. Requirements for proper testing are given in could significantly increase wind loads. Additional wind
ASCE 49 (2012). tunnel testing without specific nearby buildings or structures (or
It is common practice to resort to wind tunnel tests when with additional buildings or structures if they might cause
design data are required for the following wind-induced loads: increased loads through channeling or buffeting) is an effective
method for determining the influence of adjacent buildings or
1. Curtain wall pressures resulting from irregular geometry; structures.
2. Across-wind and/or torsional loads; For this reason, the standard limits the reduction that can be
3. Periodic loads caused by vortex shedding; and accepted from wind tunnel tests to 80% of the result obtained
4. Loads resulting from instabilities, such as flutter or from Part 1 of Chapter 27 or Part 1 of Chapter 28, or Chapter 30,
galloping. if the wind tunnel proximity model included any specific influ-
Boundary-layer wind tunnels capable of developing flows that ential buildings or other objects that, in the judgment of an
meet the conditions stipulated in Section 31.2 typically have test- experienced wind engineer, are likely to have substantially
section dimensions in the following ranges: width of 6 to 12 ft (2 influenced the results beyond those characteristic of the general
to 4 m), height of 6 to 10 ft (2 to 3 m), and length of 50 to 100 ft surroundings. If there are any such buildings or objects, supple-
(15 to 30 m). Maximum wind speeds are ordinarily in the range mental testing can be performed to quantify their effect on the
of 25 to 100 mi=h (10 to 45 m=s). The wind tunnel may be either original results and possibly justify a limit lower than 80%, by
an open-circuit or closed-circuit type. removing them from the detailed proximity model and replacing
Three basic types of wind tunnel test models are commonly them with characteristic ground roughness consistent with the
used. These are designated as follows: (1) rigid pressure model adjacent roughness. A specific influential building or object is
(PM), (2) rigid high-frequency base balance model (H-FBBM), one within the detailed proximity model that protrudes well
and (3) aeroelastic model (AM). One or more of the models may above its surroundings, or is unusually close to the subject
be used to obtain design loads for a particular building or building, or may otherwise cause substantial sheltering effect
structure. The PM provides local peak pressures for design of or magnification of the wind loads. When these supplemental test
elements, such as cladding and mean pressures, for the determi- results are included with the original results, the acceptable
nation of overall mean loads. The H-FBBM measures overall results are then considered to be the higher of both conditions.
fluctuating loads (aerodynamic admittance) for the determination However, the absolute minimum reduction permitted is 65%
of dynamic responses. When motion of a building or structure of the baseline result for C&C and 50% for the main wind force
influences the wind loading, the AM is used for direct measure- resisting system (MWFRS). A higher reduction is permitted for
ment of overall loads, deflections, and accelerations. Each of MWFRS because C&C loads are more subject to changes caused
these models, together with a model of the surroundings (prox- by local channeling effects when surroundings change, and they
imity model), can provide information other than wind loads, can easily be dramatically increased when a new adjacent
such as snow loads on complex roofs, wind data to evaluate building is constructed. It is also recognized that cladding failures
environmental impact on pedestrians, and concentrations of air are much more common than failures of the MWFRS. In
pollutant emissions for environmental impact determinations. addition, for the case of MWFRS, it is easily demonstrated that
Several references provide detailed information and guidance the overall drag coefficient for certain common building shapes,
for the determination of wind loads and other types of design data such as circular cylinders (especially with rounded or domed

Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures 793
 tops), is one-half or less of the drag coefficient for the rectangular true. Extrapolations from available building shapes and sizes are
prisms that form the basis of Chapters 27, 28, and 30. not permitted, and interpolations in some instances may not be
For C&C, the 80% limit is defined by the interior Zones 1 and advisable. For these reasons, the guidance of an engineer expe-
4 in Figs. 30.3-1, 30.3-2A–C, 30.3-3, 30.3-4, 30.3-5A–B, 30.3-6, rienced in wind loads on buildings and familiar with the usage of
30.3-7, and 30.4-1. This limitation recognizes that pressures in these databases is recommended.
the edge zones are the ones most likely to be reduced by the All databases must have been obtained using testing method-
specific geometry of real buildings compared with the rectangu- ology that meets the requirements for wind tunnel testing speci-
lar prismatic buildings assumed in Chapter 30. Therefore, pres- fied in Chapter 31.
sures in edge and corner zones are permitted to be as low as 80%
C31.4.3 Wind Directionality. The variability of wind speed
of the interior pressures from Chapter 30 without the supple-
determined for particular azimuth intervals is greater than that of
mental tests. The 80% limit based on Zone 1 is directly applicable
the wind speed determined regardless of wind direction (Isyumov
to all roof areas, and the 80% limit based on Zone 4 is directly
et al. 2013). Consequently, wind loads and wind-induced effects
applicable to all wall areas.
determined by allowing for wind directionality are inherently less
The limitation on MWFRS loads is more complex because the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anurag Jain on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

certain. Several methods for combining data from wind tunnel

load effects (e.g., member stresses or forces, deflections) at any
model studies with information on wind speed and direction at
point are the combined effect of a vector of applied loads instead
the project site are currently in use (Isyumov et al. 2013; Yeo
of a simple scalar value. In general, the ratio of forces or
and Simiu 2011; and Simiu 2011). Whichever method is used
moments or torques (force eccentricity) at various floors through-
shall be clearly described to allow scrutiny by the designer and
out the building using a wind tunnel study will not be the same as
the Authority Having Jurisdiction. A common approach for
those ratios determined from Chapter 27 and 28, and therefore
allowing for uncertainties in the wind direction is to rotate the
comparison between the two methods is not well defined.
project wind climate relative to the orientation of the building or
Requiring each load effect from a wind tunnel test to be no less
structure. This rotation of the wind climate at the building
than 80% of the same effect resulting from Chapters 27 and 28 is
location is intended to ensure that the wind loads determined
impractical and unnecessarily complex and detailed, given the
for design are not unconservative and shall be considered
approximate nature of the 80% value. Instead, the intent of the
regardless of the method used for arriving at the design wind
limitation is effectively implemented by applying it only to a
speeds. The appropriate magnitude of wind climate rotation
simple index that characterizes the overall loading. For flexible
varies depending on the quality and resolution of the
(tall) buildings, the most descriptive index of overall loading is
directional wind climate data at the project site.
the base overturning moment. For other buildings, the over-
turning moment can be a poor characterization of the overall
loading, and the base shear is recommended instead. C31.6 ROOF-MOUNTED SOLAR COLLECTORS FOR
ROOF SLOPES LESS THAN 7 DEGREES

C31.4 LOAD EFFECTS C31.6.1 Wind Tunnel Test Requirements. For solar collector
installations, it is necessary to model a generic building with the
C31.4.1 Mean Recurrence Intervals of Load solar collectors on the roof of a scaled building, then generate
Effects. Examples of analysis methods for combining direc- (GC rn ) pressure coefficients that are applicable to any site, a wide
tional wind tunnel data with the directional meteorological range of building sizes, and varied collector layouts. The
data or probabilistic models based thereon are described in approach needs to be similar to that used to develop the
Lepage and Irwin (1985), Rigato et al. (2001), Isyumov et al. (GC p ) figures in ASCE 7 by modeling the generic buildings
(2013), Irwin et al. (2005), Simiu and Filliben (2005), and Simiu with various features to capture a wide range of effects. The
and Miyata (2006). objective of such testing is to evaluate aerodynamic effects
accounted for by (GC rn ) pressure coefficients (in contrast to
C31.4.2 Limitations on Wind Speeds. Section 31.4.2 specifies
site-specific wind tunnel testing, which also evaluates the effect
that the statistical methods used to analyze historical wind speed
of surrounding structures and terrain). Nearby buildings should
and direction data for wind tunnel studies shall be subject to the
not be included unless they are to be a part of every design
same limitations specified in Section 31.4.2 that apply to the
application for this collector.
Analytical Method.
Wind tunnel testing for roof-mounted solar collectors must
Database-Assisted Design. Wind tunnel aerodynamics data-
include a sufficiently large test matrix to address an appropriate
bases that contain records of pressures measured synchronously
range of the relevant variables that affect wind loads as listed in
at large numbers of locations on the exterior surface of building
the provisions. Tests are often performed at model scale of 1∶50
models have been developed by wind researchers, such as Simiu
or larger where the match of wind tunnel turbulence character-
et al. (2003) and Main and Fritz (2006). Such databases include
istics is not ideal, resulting in some added requirements for
data that permit a designer to determine, without specific wind
testing, including integral scale limits. The wind tunnel study
tunnel tests, wind-induced forces and moments in MWFRSs and
should provide recommendations for setback distances from
C&C of selected shapes and sizes of buildings. A public domain
larger rooftop equipment, penthouses, clerestories, and other
set of such databases, recorded in tests conducted at the Univer-
building features. Guidance for testing is provided in ASCE
sity of Western Ontario (Ho et al. 2005; St. Pierre et al. 2005) for
49, Kopp and Banks (2013), and Kopp et al. (2011, 2012). Wind
buildings with gable roofs is available on the National Institute of
loads are expressed as coefficients usable in Chapters 27, 29, and
Standards and Technology website, www.nist.gov/wind (NIST
30 to produce loads in engineering units. Alternately, a different
2012). Interpolation software for buildings with similar shape
formulation of nondimensional load coefficients may be used
and with dimensions close to and intermediate between those
provided that the analysis procedure is clearly defined in the test
included in the set of databases is also available on that site.
report.
Because the database results are for generic surroundings as
permitted in ASCE 49 interpolation or extrapolation from these C31.6.1.1 Limitations on Wind Loads for Rooftop Solar
databases should be used only if Condition 2 of Section 27.1.2 is Collectors. The minimum components and cladding wind

794 STANDARD ASCE/SEI 7-16

 load pressures indicated in ASCE 7 are primarily applicable Isyumov, N., Ho, E., and Case, P. (2013). “Influence of Wind Directionality
to the building envelope and are not entirely applicable to on Wind Loads and Responses.” Proc., 12th Americas Conf. on Wind Eng.
141(8) doi: 10.1061/541X.0001180, 04014208.
rooftop solar collectors. The limitations contained herein are Isyumov, N., Mikitiuk, M., Case, P., Lythe, G., and Welburn, A. (2013).
to establish the lower bound wind pressures for wind tunnel “Predictions of wind loads and responses from simulated tropical storm
studies of conditions similar to those addressed by Fig. 29. 4-7 passages.” Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Wind Eng, D. A. Smith and C. W.
The limits on wind tunnel results shown in Fig. 29.4-7 repre- Letchford, eds. 19(3), 295–320. doi: 10.12989/was.2014.19.3.295.
sent an envelope of wind loads measured in the wind tunnel Kopp, G., and Banks, D. (2013). “Use of the wind tunnel test method for
without deflectors or shrouds that are commonly used to lower obtaining design wind loads on roof-mounted solar arrays.” J. Struct. Eng.
139(2), 284–287.
wind loads. Specific installations or collector geometries may Kopp, G. A., Farquhar, S., and Morrison, M. J. (2012). “Aerodynamic
give significantly lower loads than Fig. 29.4-7; limits are mechanisms for wind loads on tilted, roof-mounted, solar arrays.” J. Wind
imposed to prevent too much deviation from the enveloped Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 111, 40–52.
results. Kopp, G., Maffei, J., and Tilley, C. (2011). “Rooftop solar arrays and wind
loading: A primer on using wind tunnel testing as a basis for code
C31.6.1.2 Peer Review Requirements for Wind Tunnel Tests compliant design per ASCE 7,” Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Anurag Jain on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of Roof-Mounted Solar Collectors. Solar collector systems Univ. of Western Ontario, Faculty of Engineering.
that have aerodynamic devices or more efficient profiles can Lepage, M. F., and Irwin, P. A. (1985). “A technique for combining historical
have wind tunnel based wind loads less than the lower bound wind data with wind tunnel tests to predict extreme wind loads.” Proc., 5th
U.S. Nat. Conf. on Wind Eng., M. Mehta, ed. doi: 10.1061/541X.0001625,
thresholds indicated in Sections 31.6.1 and 31.6.2. In order to use
04016148.
these lower values, a peer review of the test and report is Main, J. A., and Fritz, W. P. (2006). “Database-assisted design for wind:
required. The peer reviewer qualifications and requirements Concepts, software, and examples for rigid and flexible buildings.” NIST
are included to promote consistencies among the various Building Science Series 180, National Institute of Standards and Technol-
jurisdictions so that a peer review could be accepted by ogy, Washington, DC.
multiple enforcement agencies. The peer review qualifications National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2012). “Extreme
winds and wind effects on structures.” 〈www.nist.gov/wind〉 (March 5,
are intended to be those of a wind tunnel expert familiar with
2012).
wind tunnel testing of buildings and the applicability of the Reinhold, T. A., ed. (1982). “Wind tunnel modeling for civil engineering
ASCE 7 provisions to determine generalized wind design applications.” Proc., Int. Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling Criteria and
coefficients for roof-mounted solar collectors. One source for Techniques in Civil Eng. Applications, Cambridge University Press,
peer reviewers is the American Association for Wind Gaithersburg, MD.
Engineering’s (AAWE) boundary layer wind tunnels list Rigato, A., Chang, P., and Simiu, E. (2001). “Database-assisted design,
standardization, and wind direction effects.” J. Struct. Eng., 127(8),
(http://www.aawe.org/info/wind_tunnels.php).
855–860.
Simiu, E. (2011). Design of building for wind, John Wiley and Sons,
REFERENCES Hoboken, NJ.
Simiu, E., and Filliben, J. J. (2005). “Wind tunnel testing and the sector-by-
ASCE. (1999). “Wind tunnel model studies of buildings and structures.” sector approach to wind directionality effects.” J. Struct. Eng. 131(7),
ASCE Manuals and Reports of Engineering Practice No. 67, Reston, VA. 1143–1145.
ASCE. (2012). “Wind tunnel testing for buildings and other structures.” Simiu, E., and Miyata, T. (2006). Design of buildings and bridges for wind: A
ASCE/SEI 49-12, Reston, VA. practical guide for ASCE Standard 7 users and designers of special
Boggs, D. W., and Peterka, J. A. (1989). “Aerodynamic model tests of tall structures, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
buildings.” J. Eng. Mech. 115(3), 618–635. Simiu, E., Sadek, F., Whalen, T. A., Jang, S., Lu, L.-W., Diniz, S. M. C., et al.
Cermak, J. E. (1977). “Wind-tunnel testing of structures.” J. Eng. Mech. Div. (2003). “Achieving safer and more economical buildings through database-
103(6), 1125–1140. assisted, reliability-based design for wind.” J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn.,
Ho, T. C. E., Surry, D., Morrish, D., and Kopp, G. A. (2005). “The UWO 91, 1587–1611.
contribution to the NIST aerodynamic database for wind loads on low St. Pierre, L. M., Kopp, G. A., Surry, D., and Ho, T. C. E. (2005). “The UWO
buildings: Part 1. Archiving format and basic aerodynamic data.” J. Wind contribution to the NIST aerodynamic database for wind loads on low
Eng. Indust. Aerodyn., 93, 1–30. buildings: Part 2. Comparison of data with wind load provisions.” J. Wind
Irwin, P., Garber, J., and Ho, E. (2005). “Integration of wind tunnel data with Eng. Indust. Aerodyn., 93, 31–59.
full scale wind climate.” Proc., 10th Americas Conf. on Wind Eng., Baton Yeo, D., and Simiu, E. (2011) “High-rise reinforced concrete structures:
Rouge, LA. doi: 10.1061/541X.0000654. Database-assisted design for wind,” J. Struct. Eng. 127, 1340–1349.

Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures 795