1

Comparative study of effects on peak velocity pressure calculated by thirty-four

European wind loading standards
Thorsten Kray1, Jantje Paul1
1
I.F.I. Institut für Industrieaerodynamik GmbH, Institute at Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Aachen, Germany
email: kray@ifi-aachen.de, paul@ifi-aachen.de

ABSTRACT: The current state of the adoption of National Annexes to EN 1991-1-4 [1] is reported. Moreover, the fundamental
values of the basic wind velocity, vb,0, and of the basic velocity pressure, qb,0, for more than 30 countries in the EU and in the
adjacent countries are compared. In the next step, peak velocity pressures qp are calculated using a unified fundamental value of
the basic wind velocity of vb,0 = 25 m/s, two different terrain categories and building heights of 12 m and 50 m. Only few small
countries limit themselves to defining the fundamental values of the basic wind velocity, vb,0. Most countries use the wide
variety of opportunities to choose Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs). Some countries such as Germany and the UK
even alter the basic formulae given in the Eurocode which are not allowed for national choices.

KEY WORDS: Peak Velocity Pressure; Fundamental Value of the Basic Wind Velocity; European Wind Loading Standards;
National Annexes to EN 1991-1-4; Nationally Determined Parameters; Comparative Study.

1 THE CURRENT STATE OF THE NATIONAL ANNEXES TO EN 1991-1-4

The current state of the adoption of National Annexes to EN 1991-1-4 of the CEN member states (“National members” and
“Affiliates”) is reported.
“National members” are regular members of the Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN). Regular members are national
standardization bodies of the EU and EFTA member states. Additionally, the general assembly may offer a regular membership
to candidates for an EU or EFTA membership, e.g. to Turkey.
“Affiliates” may be national standardization bodies that reside in the “European neighborhood” and are regular or
corresponding members of the International Organization of Standardization (ISO). Historically, the term “European
neighborhood” is interpreted quite widely. Besides Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, it includes larger parts of the
Mediterranean and of the Middle East. Originally, this status was supposed to be a probationary membership for EU- and
EFTA-candidates, but today it is also offered to other interested countries.
Current regular CEN members are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
“Affiliates“ within Europe are: Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine.
“Affiliates” outside Europe are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia.
Many national standardization bodies have webpages or even offer online shops where standards may be ordered. Another
option are requests via e-mail, even though these are not always answered or answered inadequately.
The current state shows an advanced state of adoption of National Annexes among the regular CEN members. The following
groups of countries may be distinguished:
· The current 33 regular CEN members with few exceptions have adopted the EN 1991-1-4 [1] and have published National
Annexes, see references [3] to [30]. Exceptions are Macedonia, Malta, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. Malta and
Macedonia have announced upon request to publish National Annexes in the course of 2015. The Swiss standard SiA 261
was partially revised and republished in July 2014 [33]. Switzerland has also announced to publish a National Annex to EN
1991-1-4 in the course of 2015. In Spain [34] and Turkey [36] valid national standards exist. However, no National
Annexes to EN 1991-1-4 are published.
· Among the “Affiliates” only Belarus has published a National Annex to EN 1991-1-4 [2]. Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Montenegro are currently developing National Annexes, but have not yet decided when these will be published.
· Armenia has no national wind loading standard and does not consider adopting the Eurocode.
· Ukraine has not published a National Annex. The valid Ukrainian standard [37] shows a lot of similarities to the Russian
standard [32], even though both codes are not identical.

14th International Conference on Wind Engineering – Porto Alegre, Brazil – June 21-26, 2015
 2

· Russia and Azerbaijan are still using the standard of the former USSR [32].
· Israel does have an independent wind loading standard.
Official wind loading standards were found by means of the web search neither for Albania and Moldova, nor for Egypt,
Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia. Yet, unofficial wind loading recommendations exist in many if not in all of these
countries.

2 FUNDAMENTAL VALUES OF THE BASIC WIND VELOCITY VB,0

In Europe the fundamental values of the basic wind velocity, vb,0, notation as provided in EN 1991-1-4, usually range between
20 m/s and 35 m/s. Higher values are only found in mountainous areas of the Czech Republic and of Bulgaria, as well as on
Iceland, on overseas departments and territories of France, on Cyprus and at coastal areas of Croatia. Additionally, several
countries use an altitude correction which in some cases increases the peak velocity pressure continuously from the main sea
level. Only Austria gives smaller values with a minimum of vb,0 = 17.6 m/s. Table 1 shows an overview for more than thirty
countries.
Table 1. Fundamental values of the basic wind velocity according to the National Annexes.

Fundamental values of the basic wind velocity /

Country
basic velocity pressure

vb,0 [m/s] qb,0 [kN/m 2] NA to EN 1991-1-4

- -
Austria 17.6 to 28.3 0.19 to 0.5 yes
Belarus 22 to 24 0.3 to 0.36 yes
Belgium 23 to 26 0.33 to 0.42 yes
Bulgaria 24 to 35.8* 0.36 to 0.8* yes
Croatia 20 to 48 0.25 to 1.44 yes
Cyprus 24 to 40 0.36 to 1.0 yes
Czech Republic 22.5 to 36+ 0.32 to 0.81 yes
Denmark 24 to 27 0.36 to 0.46 yes
Estonia 21 0.28 yes
Finland 21 to 26 0.28 to 0.42 yes
France 22 to 28~ 0.3 to 0.48 yes
Germany 22.5 to 30 0.32 to 0.56 yes
Greece 27 to 33 0.46 to 0.68 yes
Hungary 23.6 0.35 yes
Iceland 36 0.81 yes
Ireland 25 to 28 0.38 to 0.48 yes
Italy 25 to 31 0.39 to 0.6 yes
Latvia 21 to 27 0.28 to 0.46 yes
Lithuania 24 to 32 0.36 to 0.63 yes
Luxemburg 24 0.36 yes
Netherlands 24.5 to 29.5 0.38 to 0.54 yes
Norway 22 to 31/ 0.3 to 0.6 yes
Poland 22 to 26 0.3 to 0.42 yes
Portugal 27 to 30 0.46 to 0.56 yes
Romania 27 to 35 0.46 to 0.77 yes
Russia 19.6 to 43.6° 0.24 to 1.19 no
Slovakia 24 to 26- 0.36 to 0.42- yes
Slovenia 20 to 30- 0.25 to 0.56- yes
Spain 26 to 29 0.42 to 0.53 no
Sweden 21 to 26 0.28 to 0.42 yes
Switzerland 20 to 24- 0.25 to 0.36- no
United Kingdom 22 to 32 0.3 to 0.63 yes
Ukraine 24 to 31.3 0.36 to 0.6 no
* for large cities in Bulgaria
+ effect of altitude included
- for large altitudes higher values have to be applied
° calculated from qb,0
~ higher values for overseas departments and territories
/ higher values at sea (up to 33 m/s)

14th International Conference on Wind Engineering – Porto Alegre, Brazil – June 21-26, 2015
 3

Turkey still uses a step profile, based on the 1986 version of DIN 1055-4 [31]. The given steps range from 28 to 46 m/s
corresponding to a range of 0.5 to 1.3 kN/m² and depend on the height. At a height of 10 m, a wind velocity of 36 m/s and a
peak velocity pressure of 0.8 kN/m² have to be applied. As the Turkish code does not give any equation to calculate vb,0 from the
reference peak velocity pressures, Turkey is not included in Table 1.
However, Russia is included in the comparison. The Russian Standard, which includes the entire former USSR, gives
fundamental values of the basic wind velocity between 19.6 m/s and 43.6 m/s.
The gust factor, the ratio of peak wind velocity to mean wind velocity, is 1.9 in Switzerland [41]. Therefore, the reference
peak velocity pressures which are in a range of 0.9 to 1.3 kN/m² except in the Alps and in the Jura [33] can be traced back to
basic wind velocities of 20 m/s to 24 m/s. However, peak velocity pressures up to 2.4 kN/m2 in the Jura and even up to
3.3 kN/m2 in the Alps are given in [33]. In the commentary to SiA 261 [41] these values are referred to as “rare peak gusts”. In
addition, the following statement is found in [41]: “The gust of wind refers to an instantaneous velocity over 0.1 s of duration
which is additionally increased by 10% to account for the inertia of the anemometer.” For comparison, the peak wind velocities
given in DIN EN 1991-1-4/NA:2010-12 [6], the German National Annex, refer to mean values over 2 to 3 seconds [39].

3 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PEAK VELOCITY PRESSURES QP

Due to the large number of Nationally Determined Parameters, a European comparison of peak velocity pressures, qp, is only
possible with simplified boundary conditions. For this reason, the fundamental value of the basic wind velocity, vb,0, is generally
set to 25 m/s, even though several countries define different fundamental values of the basic wind velocity.
Exceptions are Switzerland and Turkey. Since the reference peak velocity pressure according to SiA 261 is already the
equivalent to the peak velocity pressure, qp, the smallest possible value of 0.9 kN/m² (which by applying the gust factor of 1.9
corresponds only to vb,0 = 20 m/s, see Table 1) is chosen. In Turkey the peak velocity pressures of 0.8 kN/m² and 1.1 kN/m²,
respectively, have to be chosen for the heights of 12 m and 50 m.
For the comparison, the terrain category (TC) for an area with regular cover of vegetation or buildings (suburban terrain,
forests, villages) is chosen. In the EN 1991-1-4 this terrain corresponds to terrain category III. An additional comparison is made
for terrain category II corresponding to low vegetation. Some countries define terrain categories differing from the terrain
categories as given in Section 4.3.2 of EN 1991-1-4; in these cases the most similar terrain categories are chosen.
The return period is always set to 50 years. Further parameters such as the directional factor, the seasonal factor and the
topography factor are set to 1.0. Figure 1 to Figure 4 show the comparison of the peak velocity pressures, qp, for terrain
categories II and III, as well as for the heights of 12 m and 50 m calculated under these conditions.
The largest differences between the countries can be traced back to differences in the definition of terrain categories. France
for example differentiates the terrain categories IIIa and IIIb. For terrain category IIIb the sample case in Figure 1 results in a
peak velocity pressure, qp, of 0.58 kN/m². This value is significantly lower than the average of 0.72 kN/m² (black line).
However, in terrain category IIIa a value of 0.75 kN/m² is calculated.
The peak velocity pressure qp of 0.63 kN/m² in the Netherlands appears to be low, see Figure 1. The qp-values of Sweden and
Germany with values of 0.65 kN/m² and 0.66 kN/m², respectively, are below average as well. Similar differences may be
observed in the other sample cases.
The wind profile as defined in Sweden corresponds to a finely divided step profile. According to [35] the given values for the
steps correspond to a logarithmic profile for which an equation is given. When comparing the equation with the step profile,
severe differences are found, as the equation was obviously not used to calculate the values given in the table. However, it is
clearly stated that values from the table have to be used [35]. In the European comparison, the peak velocity pressures calculated
for Sweden are rather low.
The low peak velocity pressures for Germany and Austria can be traced back to the use of the power law which leads to lower
values for heights below 100 m. On the other hand, Germany allows the use of TC III only if it is present at least 3 km upstream
from the building site in a 30°-sector. This rather unfavorable boundary condition leads to the use of TC II or of the profile for
non-equilibrium terrain as defined in the National Annex [6]. Theses terrain categories eventually lead to higher qp-values. For a
height of 12 m, a peak velocity pressure of 0.71 kN/m² is found in most countries. This value for the sample case (TC III, height
of 12 m) is the result of the standard method in EN 1991-1-4 which most countries have adopted. The other sample cases show a
similar picture.
The Spanish standard [34] uses similar terrain categories as EN 1991-1-4, but numbers them differently. The Spanish terrain
categories are numbered from I to V, whereas the Eurocode uses a numbering from 0 to IV. This is why TC III in the Eurocode
corresponds to TC IV in the Spanish standard.
The Italian National Annex [13] was published in 2007. However, almost in parallel an updated version of the „Norme
tecniche per le costruzioni“ [38] was published in 2008. The latter one adopted the content of the National Annex, but as in
Spain the numbering of the terrain categories was changed and further categories were added. Additionally, the minimum height
zmin for terrain category III (according to Eurocode, TC IV in Italy) was increased from 5 m to 8 m. Moreover, in TC II
(according to Eurocode and identical with [38]) zmin was increased from 2 m to 4 m. However, these changes in zmin have no
effect on the present peak velocity pressure calculations for heights of 12 m and 50 m.

14th International Conference on Wind Engineering – Porto Alegre, Brazil – June 21-26, 2015
 4

Figure 1. European comparison of peak velocity pressures qp in terrain category III at a height of 12 m based on the national
standards of 34 countries; the black line indicates the average value.

Figure 2. European comparison of peak velocity pressures qp in terrain category III at a height of 50 m based on the national
standards of 34 countries; the black line indicates the average value.

As described in Section 6.4 of the commentary to SiA 261 [41] rare peak gusts of 0.1 s of duration have to be applied in
Switzerland. The 0.1-s duration of peak velocity pressure is equivalent to a 3-s peak velocity pressure multiplied by a 1.2 factor
[42]. Additionally, as stated in [41], topographic effects are already included in the reference peak velocity pressures given in

14th International Conference on Wind Engineering – Porto Alegre, Brazil – June 21-26, 2015
 5

the Swiss wind map. These two features of SiA 261 [33] are believed to explain the high peak velocity pressure of 0.94 kN/m² in
Figure 1, as well as the other outliers in Figure 2 to Figure 4.

Figure 3. European comparison of peak velocity pressures qp in terrain category II at a height of 12 m based on the national
standards of 34 countries; the black line shows the average.

Figure 4. European comparison of peak velocity pressures qp in terrain category II at a height of 50 m based on the national
standards of 34 countries; the black line shows the average.

14th International Conference on Wind Engineering – Porto Alegre, Brazil – June 21-26, 2015
 6

Following the Russian standard, in TC III at a height of 12 m a very low peak velocity pressure of 0.55 kN/m² is calculated. In
the comparison this qp-value is the smallest one. However, a literature research has shown that the w0-values given in the
Russian standard represent a five year return period. According to Popov [40] a factor of 1.4 has to be applied to this peak
velocity pressure to convert it into a peak velocity pressure for a return period of 50 years. This conversion is included in all
Figures and results for the calculation given in Figure 1 in a peak velocity pressure of 0.75 kN/m² which is in a similar range as
the qp-values of most countries.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show similar outliers as Figure 1 and Figure 2 with the exception of Turkey. The Turkish standard [36]
does not give any terrain categories. On the basis of the given step profile, at a height of 12 m a value of 0.8 kN/m² is found,
whereas at a height of 50 m a value of 1.1 kN/m² has to be applied. In terrain category III at a height of 12 m this value is
significantly higher than the average, whereas at 50 m height the value is about average. However, in terrain category II the peak
velocity pressures calculated for Turkey are below average.
The rather small values for the peak velocity pressure as calculated by the Dutch National Annex [18] originate from the
altered roughness lengths. For terrain category II the Eurocode gives a value for z0 of 0.05 m, whereas in the Netherlands this
value is increased to 0.2 m. In terrain category III an increase from 0.3 m to 0.5 m is found. Moreover, the Dutch terrain
categories are not fully comparable to those in the Eurocode, as only three different terrain categories are defined:
0 = Sea and coastal areas
II = not built-up areas
III = built-up areas.

4 CONCLUSION
Especially ‘small’ countries follow the recommendations given in the Eurocode. Some ‘small’ countries such as Iceland,
Latvia or Cyprus give only fundamental values of the basic wind velocity and do not define any other Nationally Determined
Parameters (NDPs). However, plenty of countries make numerous use of the option to give Nationally Determined Parameters.
Countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom even alter the basic formulae given in the Eurocode which are not
allowed for national choices.
However, the similar level of peak velocity pressures in most countries may not lead to the conclusion that an intensive study
of the National Annexes is not necessary. Some national standardization organizations have published extensive National
Annexes. The NDPs defined therein may have a large impact on the peak velocity pressure calculation.

REFERENCES

EUROCODE AND NATIONAL ANNEXES ([2] TO [30])

[1] EN 1991-1-4:2005: Eurocode1: Actions on structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions, CEN, 2005
[2] ТCP ЕN 1991-1-4-2009: National Annex to technical code TCP EN 1991-1-4-2009 – Eurocodе 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-4: General actions –
Wind actions, Ministry of Architecture and Construction of Belarus, Minsk, 2010
[3] NBN EN 1991-1-4-ANB:2010-12: Eurocode 1 : Actions sur les structures – Partie 1-4 : Actions générales – Actions du vent – Annexe nationale, Bureau
de Normalisation, Brussels, 2010
[4] BDS EN 1991-1-4/NA:2011-01: Eurocode 1 – Actions on Structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions – National Annex to BDS EN 1991-1-
4:2005, BIS, Sofia, 2011
[5] DS/EN 1991-1-4 DK NA:2010-03: National Annex to Eurocode 1: – Actions on Structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions, www.ds.dk, 2010
[6] DIN EN 1991-1-4/NA:2010-12: Nationaler Anhang – National festgelegte Parameter – Eurocode 1: Einwirkungen auf Tragwerke – Teil 1-4: Allgemeine
Einwirkungen – Windlasten, Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V., Beuth-Verlag, Berlin, 2010
[7] EVS EN 1991-1-4/A1:2010/NA:2010: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions, Estonian National Annex; Estonian
Center for Standardisation, Tallin, 2010
[8] SFS-EN 1991-1-4/NA:2010: National Annex to Eurocode 1 – Actions on Structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions, Helsinki, 2010
[9] NF EN 1991-1-4/NA:2008-03+A1:2011-07+A2:2012-09: Annexe nationale à la NF EN 1991-1-4:2005 – Actions générales — Actions du vent, AFNOR,
La Plaine Saint-Denis Cedex, 2008-2012
[10] ΕΛΟΤ EN 1991-1-4:2005/NA: Greek National Annex to Eurocode 1 – Actions on Structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions, Hellenic
Standards, Peristeri, 2010
[11] NA to I.S. EN 1991-1-4:2013: Irish National Annex to Eurocode 1 – Actions on Structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions, NSAI, Dublin,
2013
[12] ÍST EN 1991-1-4:2005/NA:2010-12: National Annex to Eurocode 1 – Actions on Structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions, Stađfestur af
Stađlaráđi Íslands, Reykjavik, 2010
[13] UNI EN 1991-1-4/AN:2007-07: Appendice Nazionale UNI-EN 1991-1-4 – Azioni sulle costruzioni – Parte 1-4: Azioni in generale – Azioni del vento,
UNIN, Rome, 2007
[14] HRN EN 1991-1-4:2012/NA:2012: Eurokod 1: Djelovanja na konstrukcije – Dio 1-4 : Opća djelovanja – Djelovanja vjetra – Nacionalni dodatak,
Croatian Standards Institute – Hrvatski zavod za norme (HZN), Zagreb, 2012
[15] LVS EN 1991-1-4/NA:2011-09: 1.Eurokodekss. Iedarbes uz konstrukcijām. 1-4. Daļa: Vispārīgās iedarbes. Vēja iedarbes. Nacionālais pielikums, LVS
Latvijas Standarts, Riga, 2011
[16] LST EN 1991-1-4/NA: Eurokodas 1. Poveikiai konstrukcijoms. 1-4 dalis. Bendrieji poveikiai. VVejo poėikiai, Lietuvos Standartizacijos Departamentas,
Vilnius, 2012
[17] EN 1991-1-4:2005/AN-LU:2011: Actions sur les structures – Partie 1-4: Actions générales — Actions du vent, ILNAS, Luxembourg, 2011
[18] NEN EN 1991-1-4+A1+C2:2011/NB:2011: Nationale bijlage bij NEN-EN 1991-1-4 – Eurocode 1: Belastingen op constructies – Deel 1-4: Algemene
belastingen – Windbelasting, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 2011
[19] NS-EN 1991-1-4:2005+NA:2009: Eurokode 1: Laster på konstruksjoner, Del 1-4: Allmenne laster, Vindlaster, standard norge, Lysaker, 2009

14th International Conference on Wind Engineering – Porto Alegre, Brazil – June 21-26, 2015
 7

[20] ÖNorm B 1991-1-4:2013-05-01: Nationale Festlegungen zu ÖNORM EN 1991-1-4 und nationale Ergänzungen, Österreichisches Normeninstitut (ON),
Vienna, 2013
[21] PN-EN 1991-1-4:2008/NA:2010-09: Dotyczy PN-EN 1991-1-4:2008 – Eurokod 1 – Odd¬ziaływania na konstrukcje – Część 1-4: Oddziaływania ogólne
Oddziaływania wiatru, PKN, Warsaw, 2010
[22] NP-EN 1991-1-4:2010: Eurocódigo 1 – Acções em estruturas, Parte 1-4: Acções gerais, Acções do vento, Instituto Português da Qualidade, Caparica,
2010
[23] SR EN 1991-1-4/NB:2007-06: Eurocod 1: Acţiuni supra structurilor – Partea 1-4: acţiuni generale – Acţiuni ale vântului – Anexa naţională, Asociaţia de
standardizare din România, Bucharest, 2007
[24] SS-EN 1991-1-4:2005/Bilaga NA:2008-10: Eurokod 1: Laster på bärverk – Del 1-4: Allmänna laster – Vindlast, Swedish Standards Institute, 2008
[25] STN EN 1991-1-4/NA/Z1:2010-04: National Annex to Eurocode 1 – Actions on Structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions, Slovenský ústav
technickej normalizácie, Bratislava, 2010
[26] SIST EN 1991-1-4:2005/A101:2008-01: Evrokod 1: Vplivi na konstrukcije – 1-4. del: Splošni vplivi – Obtežbe vetra – Nacionalni dodatek, Slovenski
institute za standardizacijo, Ljubljana, 2008
[27] ČSN EN 1991-1-4/NA:2013-07: National Annex to Eurocode 1 – Actions on Structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions, Česky normalizačni
institute, Prague, 2013
[28] MSZ EN 1991-1-4:2007-12: NA nemzeti melléklet (előírás), Magyar Szabványügyi Testület, Budapest, 2007
[29] NA to BS EN 1991-1-4:2005+A1:2010: UK National Annex to Eurocode 1 – Actions on Structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions, BSi,
London, 2010
[30] NA to CYS EN 1991-1-4:2005:2010-10: National Annex to CYS EN 1991-1-4:2005 – Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures – Part 1-4: General actions –
Wind actions, CYS, Nicosia, 2010

OTHER STANDARDS
[31] DIN 1055-4:1986-08: Lastannahmen für Bauten; Verkehrslasten, Windlasten bei nicht schwingungsanfälligen Bauwerken, Beuth-Verlag, 1986
[32] SP 20.13330.2011: Loads and impacts, the Ministry of Regional Development of Russian Federation, Moscow, 2011
[33] SiA 261/1:2014: Bauwesen, Einwirkungen auf Tragwerke – Ergänzende Festlegungen, Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein, Zurich, 2014
[34] Documento Básico SE-AE: Seguridad Estructural, Acciones en la edificación, AENOR, Madrid, 2003
[35] BFS 2013:10: EKS 9, Boverkets författningssamling, Swedish Standards Institute, 2013
[36] TS 498:1987 + T1:1997 dahil: YAPI ELEMANLARININ BOYUTLANDIRILMASINDA ALINACAK YÜKLERİN HESAP DEĞERLERİ, TÜRK
STANDARDLARI ENSTİTÜSÜ, Ankara, 1997
[37] DBN.1.2–2:2006: STATE BUILDING CODE OF UKRAINE, System Reliability and Safety of Buildings, the Loads and Impacts, the Ministry of
Construction of Ukraine, Kiev, 2006

FURTHER PUBLICATIONS
[38] Il Ministro delle infrastrutture, Norme tecniche per le costruzioni, Italy, 2008
[39] H.J. Niemann, Anwendungsbereich und Hintergrund der neuen DIN 1055 Teil 4, Der Prüfingenieur, 21, 35-45, 2002
[40] N.A. Popov, The wind load codification in Russia and some estimates of a gust load accuracy provided by different codes, Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, 88, 171-181, 2000
[41] Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein, D0188, Wind, Kommentar zum Kapitel 6 der Normen SiA 261 und 261/1 (2003), Einwirkungen auf
Tragwerke, Zurich, 2006
[42] J.A. Hertig, Peak pressure coefficient distribution around low-rise buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 23, 211-222,
1986

14th International Conference on Wind Engineering – Porto Alegre, Brazil – June 21-26, 2015