14 WIND ENGINEERING AS RELATED TO TROPICAL CYCLONES

Leighton Cochran
INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, engineering codes of practice, defining the forces to be used in the design of structures in areas susceptible to tropical cyclones, have philosophically been directed towards preservation of life rather than property. Now that the early warning of approaching storms is permitting the evacuation of massive numbers of people (it should be noted that this may not be feasible for Houston-Galveston, Corpus Christi, New Orleans, the south Florida area in general, and the Florida Keys area in particular), and that the wind-loading mechanism is now better understood, the code writers are turning their attention to preserving the building envelope and structure so that heavy financial losses can be minimized. With the lessons of Hurricane Andrew still resonating on the hurricane coast, the insurance industry is poised to play a major role in ameliorating the large financial losses associated with building envelope failure in a major storm event. For example, Smith [1992] writes about the "loss of roof coverings and subsequent water infiltration" being a "major cause of property damage inflicted by Hurricane Andrew". For new buildings, the construction inspection by the responsible authority, and some financial pressure by insurers at the design phase, needs to be aggressively pursued to defend against future storms like Hurricane Andrew, or worse. In a similar manner, financial incentives via the insurance industry and the taxation code could be used to retrofit existing buildings. Historically, Andrew was a significant storm with a central pressure of 922 hPa at landfall. There have been only two other storms in the United States, this century, with a lower landfall central pressure. They were the Labor Day Storm in 1935 (892 hPa) and Hurricane Camille in 1969 (909 hPa) [Hebert and Taylor, 1983]. Research by Gray, Sheaffer and Landsea [1996] suggests that there is a twenty or thirty year cycle of Atlantic hurricane activity, and we

are now leaving a period of relatively modest hurricane frequency and are entering a period of more storm activity. Gray's work ties together several atmospheric and oceanic parameters including El Nino, the droughts of the Sahel region of west Africa and the sinking of the high salinity seawater near Iceland in the thermohaline cycle to develop a quantitative estimate of the number of Atlantic hurricanes that can be expected in an upcoming summer. The success rate of Gray's predictions to date has been quite impressive. When the potential for increased hurricane activity is combined with the growing population on the United States' hurricane coast, the financial cost (insurance industry), public cost (government and volunteer emergency services) and social cost (disruption of business, personal lives and loss of income) of not improving engineering design in these areas will be felt for generations. The following discussion summarizes the process through which wind engineers prescribe wind speeds and resulting forces (loads) that are appropriate for the design of buildings. Further, the presentation addresses the deleterious impact of buildings that are not designed to be responsive to hurricane effects and concludes with a summary of current efforts in wind engineering to mitigate windstorm damage.

Taken from Storms , Vol. I. Routledge Press 2000 (with permission) ISBN 0-415-212863

HURRICANE EFFECTS The wind speeds in Hurricane Andrew were only slightly more severe than a 50-year design storm (i.e., a recurrence interval of 50 years) for one small portion of the Florida coast at Biscayne Bay, south of the major developed area of Miami [Reinhold Vickery and Powell, 1992; Peterka and Shahid, 1992]. The associated storm surge of 5.1 m in this area was the largest recorded for Hurricane Andrew. The bulk of the hurricane landfall area experienced less than a 50year design wind, yet the level of damage was far higher than might be expected for buildings that were designed correctly and that had been inspected adequately. In fact, when one includes the conventional safety factors that would normally be applied to the 50-year design loads, there should have been very little wind damage due to Hurricane Andrew. Naturally this brought into question the design, construction and inspection processes in Florida. A very similar scenario occurred with Hurricane Elena on the United States' Gulf Coast [Committee on Natural Disasters, 1991] and Cyclone Tracy (Plate 14.1) in Darwin, Australia [Walker and Minor, 1979; Leicester and Reardon, 1976]. In two cases (Hurricane Andrew and Cyclone Tracy) the local building codes of practice were modified significantly after the event. After Cyclone Tracy in 1974 the revised local standards, in a preliminary form, [Minor, 1994; TR440, 1978; Darwin Reconstruction Commission, 1976] dictated the whole reconstruction process. However, since a major hurricane, typhoon or cyclone1 is an event which may only occur once or twice in a lifetime at a given location, the responsible authorities and property owners often become lax, or alternatively

Plate 14.1. The total devastation of Cyclone Tracy in Darwin, Australia, 1974. (Courtesy of Dr. Joseph Minor, Texas)

___________________________ 1 The regional names used for essentially the same phenomenon in various parts of the world: hurricane in the Americas, typhoon in east Asia, and cyclone in Australia and the Indian subcontinent.

have never experienced the destruction first hand. This appears to have been the case in southern Florida prior to Hurricane Andrew. In fact, Hebert and Taylor [1983] claim that "as of 1980 almost 80% of the United States coastal residents from Texas to Maine have never experienced a direct hit by a major hurricane." It is important to note that the concept of a recurrence interval is a statistical one. A given recurrence interval or return period does not mean that the design storm only occurs once in the nominated time frame. There is a 64 percent chance of experiencing at least one 50-year storm in a given 50-year period, a 26 percent chance of at least two and an 8 percent chance of at least three 50-year storms in a 50-year time period [Cook, 1985]. In fact, a "50-year recurrence" actually means there is one chance in fifty each year that the event, or one exceeding it, will occur. Thus, the recurrence interval terminology may be somewhat misleading. In other words, there is about a one in twelve chance of at least three storms with wind speeds equal to or greater than the 50-year design speed occurring within a given 50 year period! Clearly, the probability of experiencing a damaging hurricane along the coast once, or even twice, in a lifetime is high enough to take seriously. Human intervention through better engineering, quality control and institutional response can play a crucial role in reducing property loss along the hurricane coasts. DEFINING A DESIGN WIND SPEED AND DIRECTIONAL INFLUENCES The ability to obtain a reliable estimate of a design wind speed is a central component of structural design in a tropical cyclone area. The designer needs this information whether the proposed structure needs a simple code analysis or a more detailed wind-tunnel study. In fact, this critical piece of information is probably the least well defined quantity in the whole design process. Unfortunately the raw data for surface wind speeds (typically at an elevation of 10 m) during a hurricane landfall are rare. If there is a reliable anemometer (a device for measuring wind speed) in the path of the storm, the system is often turned off during the evacuation process or the instrument is destroyed by windborne debris. In fact, the coastal contours of 50-year, 10-m gust wind

speed given in ASCE 7-95 (Figure 14.1) are derived from a set of Monte Carlo computer analyses of typical storm characteristics and directions [Vickery and Twisdale, 1995; Batts Cordes Russel Shaver and Simiu, 1980] rather than direct measurements of hurricane wind speeds. A field study of hurricanes at landfall, using robust portable anemometers, would be of great value to corroborate the code's approach. Even in non-hurricane areas, where there is a fair record of the extreme wind events, data may only go back twenty or thirty years. Since the designer is interested in the extreme value statistics of 50 to 500 years, the short data record introduces a source of uncertainty called "sampling error". The latest United States wind code [ASCE 7-98] makes use of the similarity of the wind record for many anemometers that are not near major mountain ranges or the coast. By combining these data into "superstations" representative of large areas of the United States, a reduction in sampling error was achieved [Peterka, 1992]. This has given greater confidence in the nonhurricane design winds, but it is not a procedure useable on the hurricane coasts since the raw data do not exist in the first place. A second issue of interest to the structural designer in these high wind regions is what the wind profile and its turbulence structure is like inside a hurricane at the radius of maximum wind. The best insight into this seems to be coming from field measurements and detailed computer hurricane simulation studies from the atmospheric science community. For example, Meng Matsui and Hibi [1997] suggest that the flow close to the ground is still of a boundary-layer type (lower region of the atmosphere most impacted by the frictional retardation of wind speed), but that the flow more rapidly dissociates itself from the frictional influences of the surface than a strong wind from a nonhurricane source [Cook, 1985; Cermak, 1976]. Their numerical work shows that in open-country terrain the apparent boundary-layer depth is only about 150 to 200 m. For the physical wind-tunnel modeler this has some impact on how to post-process the data collected at model scale in order to obtain the best estimate of the true wind loads that the full-scale structure will experience during its design lifetime. Over the last thirty years the technique of wind-tunnel testing a new structure to give the designer

Figure 14.1 The current fifty-year mean recurrence interval, peak-gust wind map for the United States (courtesy of the American Society of Civil Engineers)

site-specific, building-specific loads has become quite a common component of the design process. MODELING IN A WIND TUNNEL AND ON THE COMPUTER The use of a wind tunnel to accurately assess the design loads for a new building is a common practice in both hurricane and non-hurricane areas. At typical scales of 1:200 to 1:500 the subject building is installed amongst its ambient built environment on a turntable so that three or four city blocks are represented in all directions (Plate 14.2). By using a long test section, boundary-layer wind tunnel with the appropriate upwind roughness on the floor, a scaled representation of the atmospheric boundary layer can be generated in the flow approaching the model. The upwind roughness, shown in Plate 14.2, reproduces the frictional effect on the flow caused by the suburban environment around the city. A detailed discussion of the theory behind these techniques may be found in

Plate 14.2 The 1:500 model of the Four Times Square tower in the center of a new York turntable at the downwind end of the boundary-layer wind tunnel at Cermak Peterka Petersen Inc. (Courtesy of The Durst Organization, Inc., New York)

The wind tunnel is essentially acting as an analog computer, where the input is the correct approach flow, the algorithm is the physical model on the turntable, and the output is the data collected by pressure transducers or other instrumentation. The ability to investigate many wind directions and model configurations means that the wind-tunnel approach is a very cost effective way of defining the loads on a structure during a hurricane or other strong straight-line wind. The procedure is not appropriate for high-curvature (small radius) tornadic winds, but fortunately the probability of an individual building being hit by a tornado is very small [DOE, 1994; Ravindra Nafday and McDonald, 1993]. However, for straight-line winds the designer is able to explore a variety of architectural shapes, geometric details, neighboring structures, and orientation to minimize the design loads. Typically, a plexiglass model of the new building is built with about 800 to 1200 taps (holes in the external surface). These taps are connected with pneumatic tubing to transducers [Holmes, 1984; Hunt, 1975] which convert the surface pressure at the building into an electrical signal that may be interpreted by computer (Plate 14.3). The data from such a study is reduced to a set of peak pressures over the building surface. The cladding (weatherproofed "skin" or barrier) over the main structure has many possible designs, but in the modern office building a non-structural barrier of glass and aluminum, called a curtainwall, is often used. The curtainwall designer can then use the wind-tunnel results to provide strength in the cladding system where it is

Cermak [1995, 1976, 1975 and 1971], Hunt [1975], Armitt [1966] and Davenport [1965 and 1960]. In essence, an undistorted geometric scale must be used, the vertical profiles of mean velocity and longitudinal turbulence intensity (a measure of gustiness) should be correct, and the energy distribution among the turbulent eddies in the flow should match that of a strong wind in the real atmosphere (referred to as the velocity spectrum). Full details of these and other testing parameters may be found in the American Society of Civil Engineers Manual of Practice Number 67 [1999].

Plate 14.3 Simultaneous pressure data collection system (256 transducers) tubed to an open-pressure model on the left. At the top right is one of the four transducer cards removed to show the internal tubing layout with the signal conditioning instrumentation below. (Courtesy of Cermak Peterka Petersen, Inc., Colorado)

needed, and be more economical where the loads are smaller. In contrast, the structural engineer is often interested in the total peak loads (the sum of gustinduced loads from the wind and inertial loads caused by the motion of the building itself) that the frame has to resist in a hurricane. These data may be obtained from a balsa wood model of the new building on either an aeroelastic or aerodynamic force balance (the latter is used for all but the most dynamic and unusual structures). Recent developments in electronic systems that measure pressures simultaneously at a large number of taps [Peterka Cochran Boggs Hosoya and Downing, 1994; Irwin and Kochanski, 1995] may eventually allow structural peak loads to be derived from the pressure model alone. The issue of the number of taps required for a given model complexity has yet to be fully understood. The layout and number of taps needs to be sufficient to correctly define the overall spectral load. Research into this technique needs to resolve these sorts of concerns before the approach is commonplace for a complete highrise building study, but it is a likely new development in the future for wind engineering. The same approach is commonly used on building components of dynamic interest; such as larger area roofs. For example, many pressure taps may be allocated to the structural areas of interest on an enclosed stadium or cantilevered grandstand roof. The relatively simple geometry in these cases results in less concern about having sufficient pressure taps than would be the case for a more architecturally complex highrise building. The temptation for users of commercial Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) packages, which almost universally use a time average (often called a k- or Reynolds stress) representation of the turbulence, to extend their application from internal, low-speed mechanically driven air flows with little or no separation to external higher-speed atmospheric flows is worth comment. The external flow around bluff bodies is a highly nonlinear mechanism involving phenomena such as separation (Plate 14.4), reattachment and vortices (Plate 14.5); all very dependent on the ambient and mechanically-induced, fine-scale turbulence. The coarse grid required by computational limitations and the use of the timeaveraged method of modeling turbulence means that these key flow features will be radically distorted, or not even present [Leschziner, 1992]. The study of external atmospheric flows around simple lone

Plate 14.4 A time-dependent separated flow around a high-rise corner causes high instantaneous loads. (Courtesy of The Adler Group Inc. Florida)

buildings has now been a key topic of two International Symposia on Computational Wind Engineering (Tokyo, Japan in 1992 and Fort Collins, USA in 1996). Of the many items presented at these conferences, two themes became readily apparent.

Plate 14.5 Roof-corner vortices are frequently the cause of the highest cladding loads on a building, but are the hardest to resolve in CFD studies. (Courtesy of the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, Connecticut)

First, to resolve the important flow features on the walls and roof of a full-scale building using numerical methods a fine grid size is needed (ideally less than 1 mm where turbulent eddies are significantly damped by viscosity; the Kolmogorov length scale). A common grid spacing for a small building of, say, 300 mm is a similar size to, or larger than, the vortex and curvature-sensitive separation flow features [Cochran, 1992; Peterka Meroney and Kothari, 1985; Peterka and Cermak, 1976;] that dominate the pressure field around a building. Since a minimum of four grid points are

typically needed to resolve accurately such a feature [Derickson, 1992], the CFD analysis will not adequately represent the real physical flow. A numerical study by He and Song [1996] used 1.2 million grid points around a small lone building (13x9x4 m) for which they obtained flow features similar to those seen around the prototype field building (located at Texas Tech University) and the wind-tunnel model (tested at Colorado State University). For a discussion of this United States National Science Foundation funded, inter-university project see Cermak and Cochran [1992], Cochran and Cermak [1992], Mehta Levitan Iverson and McDonald [1992] and Levitan Mehta Chok and Millsaps [1989]. Second, while the time-average model for turbulence in CFD studies has had some success with internal, pressure-driven, mean flows it has been shown to be an inadequate approach for external, mechanically-stimulated, turbulent or gusty flows [Peterka Cochran Pielke and Nicholls, 1996]; particularly if the peak velocity or pressure data, needed for engineering design, are of interest. Even the mean flow properties around a building derived using this approach may be incorrect since the curvature of the separation streamlines is very dependent on the turbulence structure [Melbourne, 1979]. The numerical scheme that seems to be gaining favour in the Computational Wind Engineering (CWE) community is the more computationally-intensive Large Eddy Simulation (LES) approach [Murakami, 1993; Murakami Mochida and Hayashi, 1990]. The LES approach can use a variety of turbulence closure models. However, the method is distinguished by the direct simulation of the resolvable scales of turbulence and the parameterization of the sub-grid scales [Nicholls Pielke and Meroney, 1993]. This split approach results in a more involved computational process than the traditional time-averaged turbulence models, noted above. At present, the use of the more accurate LES computational approach is still too costly and time consuming for practical engineering design. In summary, users of commercial CFD codes designed for low-turbulence, low Reynolds number flows (almost all with time-averaged turbulence

schemes) should be very wary of extending their use to external atmospheric flows around buildings; particularly when engineering design accuracy in wind loads or pollution dispersion is required. The relatively new field of CWE is making significant strides into this area, but it is clear that very fine grid scales are required and more sophisticated turbulence models, such as LES, should be used. ENVELOPE FAILURE, WINDBORNE DEBRIS AND WATER DAMAGE A large portion of the financial damage caused by a hurricane may be initiated by a windborne debris impact (often called a missile impact by wind engineers) and the resulting failure of the building envelope due to internal pressures [Minor, 1994]. It is relatively rare for the glass or other components of the cladding to fail under the action of wind pressure alone. Usually a mechanical failure of the surrounding facade structure or the impact of some windborne debris initiates the breach of the building envelope. Of course when the building envelope fails, severe water damage is often the result; particularly with hurricanes where high winds and heavy rain occur together. Plate 14.6 was taken in Miami, Florida, after Hurricane Andrew. Roof gravel was found behind the broken panes in the building to the right, and the water damage to the building interior was extensive and costly. The strongest winds during the passage of the hurricane were from left to right and these winds picked up gravel from the roof of the building on the left. Thus, the windward facade on the right building is far more damaged than the side or rear surfaces. Standard tests have now been developed in Australia and the United States to test facade elements for compliance with flying debris requirements [ASTM, 1997; SBCCI, 1997; Minor, 1994; Walker, 1991; TR440, 1978; McDonald, 1976]. After Hurricane Andrew hit the Miami area in 1992, a requirement for impact-resistant glass was included in the local building code.

Plate 14.6 Glazing damage on the windward face of high-rise buildings in Kendall, south of Miami, Florida, during Hurricane Andrew in 1992. (Courtesy of Mr. Tom Smith of the National Roofing Contractors Association, Illinois)

On lowrise buildings, the ultimate failure of the building envelope may be initiated at the roof, as well as the wall glazing and doors. In the latter cases, one example may be the often-seen collapse of trees in a hurricane, or even the removed limbs acting as projectiles and then impacting the building envelope. A review of hurricane damage by Cochran and Levitan [1994] discusses the progressive failure mechanism on the roof. The higher uplift pressures and local velocities typically occur at the roof edges, corners and ridge. Thus a failure in these areas is more likely (Plate 14.7). For example, an edge tile may be blown off and

Plate 14.7 Leading-edge failure of a gable roof design during Hurricane Fran 1996. (Courtesy of Mr. Arn Womble, CPP Inc.)

a new "edge", with similar high uplift pressures, is created further in from the true roof edge. This process may be repeated in rapid succession; producing an effective unzipping of the composite roof system (Plate 14.8) and, of course, a source of more windborne debris for downwind structures. This process can be exacerbated if the tiles are not tied down with clips or wire to battens. In some areas of southern Florida the tiles were placed on a roof deck with only a concrete pat to hold them down. The flexing of the surface during construction resulted in insufficient load capacity and many tiles became loose and susceptible to wind gusts (see Plate 14.8). In general, hip roofs are less susceptible to failure than gable roofs [Meecham Surry and Davenport, 1989]; in part due to the more streamlined shape, and in part due to the additional structural redundancy of a hip-roof design. Plate 14.9 shows a street of gable roof houses in Florida that all had the same end wall failure, attributed to a consistently inadequate bracing. The lack of structural redundancy (i.e., when one portion of a structure fails the load is transferred to other elements without total collapse) is important in understanding the severe destruction that often occurs in mobile home or manufactured

Plate 14.8 Progressive tile failure in Hurricane Andrew. (Courtesy of Mr. Arn Womble, CPP, Inc.)

housing parks [FEMA, 1986]. Additionally, inadequate structural design strengths (compare a 1200 Pa (25 psf) design requirement for mobile homes to a 2900 to 3400 Pa (60 to 70 psf) requirement for a similarly sized engineered structure from ASCE 7-98) and a lack of tiedowns also contribute to the questionable manufactured housing performance in hurricane areas. A descriptive scale of damage, applied to mobile homes, from zero (no damage) to four (total destruction) was developed by the wind engineering faculty at Texas Tech University [McDonald Vann and Levitan, 1987] and later used by Levitan Cochran and Levitan [1993]. This method of assessing the damage after the passage of a hurricane has shown that manufactured housing tends to collect at either end of the damage scale by having either "no damage" (a score of zero) or "irreparable damage" (a score of four). The relative lack of intermediate damage seen by many investigators is an indication of a lack of structural redundancy in manufactured housing; once one element fails (e.g. roof or tie downs) the whole structure then follows. Plate 14.10 shows a destroyed mobile home in the foreground (a score of four due to

a complete absence of anchorage) and an unscathed dwelling to the rear (a score of zero). Engineered structures may also fail due to a lack of redundancy, whether due to the design detailing or as-built quality control. Plate 14.11 shows how some precast concrete walls were no longer part of a structural frame, but became vertical cantilevers when the roof was removed by Hurricane Andrew. The fracture line is at the level

Plate 14.9 Repetitive, gable-end failure in Hurricane Andrew (Courtesy of Mr. Arn Womble, CPP, Inc.)

Plate 14.10 Mobile-home park at Shady Grove, Patterson, Louisiana, after Hurricane Andrew. The lack of tie-downs caused the devastating failure of the nearest mobile home.

of the internal floor slab where there was some resistance. This type of major failure shows a potential shortcoming of the concrete tilt-up construction if the roof is not tied down adequately. This type of construction is popular for large warehouses and generally seems to perform well when assembled with hurricane loads in mind.

HIGHRISE BUILDINGS AS ENGINEERED STRUCTURES Tall buildings in hurricane-prone areas benefit from a wind-tunnel study to define the cladding loads so that there is strength in the building envelope where it is needed. In addition, the structural system supporting the whole building is generally more dynamic for a taller structure. The motion of the building induced by the wind in a hurricane will create secondary inertial loads in the members due to the moving mass of the structure. The building acts like a large mechanical filter that effectively extracts energy out of the wind at gust frequencies corresponding to the natural frequency of the building. The energy provided by the approaching wind occurs over a range of frequencies that correspond to different gust sizes in the flow. Conceptually, the process can be thought of as analogous to pushing a child on a swing. When your impulse on the swing seat is in phase with the motion then the amplitude increases - you are

Plate 14.11 Roof failure in Hurricane Andrew left the precast walls unsupported and they failed along the internal, floor-slab line. (Courtesy of Mr. Arn Womble, CPP Inc.)

providing energy at the right frequency. However, if you push randomly the child's amplitude of motion will not grow. In a similar manner, a building selects the gust sizes (or impulse frequencies) from the flow spectrum at the building's natural frequency. If a building is very stiff so that the natural frequency is greater than, say, 1 Hz (or cycles/second) then there will not be much energy in the wind spectrum at this frequency to excite the structure. Thus, this type of structure would not be very dynamic. Conversely, softer structures (less stiff) with natural frequencies in the range 0.1 to 0.7 Hz will respond to the wind more dynamically since there is a lot more energy in these gust sizes available to the structure. Tall slender highrise buildings can react to strong winds in a manner that is counter-intuitive. It is not uncommon for tall buildings to experience the highest wind loads in a direction transverse to the wind itself; the so-called "cross-wind" response. This response is very dependent on the building shape and the complexity of the surroundings. However, in the right circumstances a building will alternately shed eddies off the left and right sides, relative to the approach flow. This creates an alternating negative pressure on each side of the building which results in peak loads perpendicular to the direction of the approaching wind. This phenomenon is particularly important when the frequency at which the eddies are shed is close to the natural frequency of the building; a resonant response may then develop. There is very little guidance on this behavior in building codes. Only a wind-tunnel study will give the reliable loads to be expected for a given geometry and location. Fortunately resonant loads, caused by the motion of the structure itself, are able to be at least partially controlled by the designer through manipulation of the stiffness, mass and damping. The increasing complexity of the architectural form and structural system has made the field of windtunnel testing an important component of the architectural and engineering design process. For example, a few decades ago when highrise buildings generally had a symmetric structural system, the concept of torsional loads about the vertical axis was generally not an issue of major design concern. Now it is not uncommon for the architect to separate the center of stiffness from the center of mass (e.g. placing the concrete elevator core at the end of a building, rather than the center), which may result in a torsional base moment as high as 20 percent of the larger horizontal base moment. Again, the current wind codes

Plate 14.12 Roof failure in Hurricane Andrew caused by the increase of internal pressure when a windward door failed. (Courtesy of Mr. Arn Womble, CPP, Inc.)

give little advice on this topic and so a wind-tunnel study is advisable.

LOWRISE BUILDINGS AS NON-ENGINEERED STRUCTURES

Since most lowrise commercial and domestic structures are designed and built on a modest budget, there is little opportunity to assess the wind loads by a direct wind-tunnel study. A lot of generic load data are available in a codified form which can be used by the designer. Much of these generic load data have been derived from wind-tunnel research with some full-scale verification [Levitan Mehta Chok and Millsaps, 1989; Surry, 1989; Surry and Johnson, 1986; Holmes, 1980 and 1982(a); Davenport and Surry, 1977]. Thus, the field of physical modeling in a wind tunnel is involved directly and indirectly in code provisions for wind loads. Additionally, the direct testing of unique structures and some valuable lowrise buildings (e.g. large malls, warehouses and complex fabric structures) often occurs. Even a modest breach of the building envelope will increase the internal pressure [Womble Yeatts Cermak and Mehta, 1995; Holmes, 1982(b); Stathopoulos Surry and Davenport, 1979]. This added load will augment the uplift on the roof (Plate 14.12) or perhaps blow out a wall (Plate 14.13). One way for the designer to accurately estimate the loads after the building envelope has

Plate 14.13 Unreinforced blockwork wall failure in Hurricane Andrew, initiated by an increase in internal pressure when a windward door failed.

been breached is to collect simultaneous pressure data on a wind-tunnel model. The procedure entails collecting simultaneous peak pressure data at the locations on the model where a window may break (i.e., where glazing is not protected by storm shutters). The measured peak pressure at a such a broken window may then be taken as an internal pressure which is transmitted into the building to act in concert

with the external loads measured at the same instant in time. By searching the data for the worst combination of the external peak pressure and the internally transmitted pressure from a broken window, an estimate of the worst design load may be obtained. All the estimates of design loads, either via a code or a direct wind-tunnel study, are of little value if the designers' intentions are not followed by the construction team. A large portion of the failures in Hurricane Andrew may be attributed to inadequate quality control or the prescriptive code requirements not being followed correctly. As the physics of the wind and its interaction with the anthropogenic environment becomes better understood it is very important to pass that information on to the construction managers; albeit in a truncated or instructional form. DAMAGE MITIGATION In the wake of several major hurricane disasters in the USA and around the world, significant steps

Plate 14.14 Sculpture in Darwin, Australia, made from steel power poles twisted by Cyclone Tracy, 1974. (Courtesy of Mr. Arn Womble, CPP, Inc.)

have been taken to mitigate damage to lowrise buildings that have not, traditionally, been engineered. These buildings include single and multifamily residential structures, and commercial and light industrial structures that are hybrids of metal, concrete, masonry and timber. Prescriptive standards for housing have been published. These standards, often called deemed to comply standards, contain construction details that have been engineered in accordance with the wind-engineering principles discussed herein (SBCCI, 1997; TCPIA, 1997; FEMA, 1992; Queensland Government Printer, 1982). Numerous illustrations in these documents show the builder and construction worker exactly how to frame and connect the components of a house in order to make it wind resistant. The mitigation of hurricane damage is no longer primarily a technical issue since the field of wind engineering is quite a mature discipline. The ameliorative requirements are now ones of education, politics and enforcement. Advancements have also been made in addressing the effects of windborne debris in tropical cyclones. Dade and Broward counties in south Florida enacted very restrictive debris impact provisions in the South Florida Building Code following Hurricane Andrew (SFBC, 1994 and 1993). Windows, window protective devices (shutters), doors, and wall coverings must all be able to reject impacts from windborne debris (e.g., a 4 kg, 50x100 mm timber impacting at 15 m/s) and survive 9000 cycles of wind pressure representing gusts of a tropical cyclone. Similar test provisions are contained in two United States test standards (SBCCI, 1997; ASTM, 1997). FUTURE ACTIONS In summary, the field of wind engineering has provided a better understanding of the wind-flow mechanisms as they apply to the built environment. The correct application of this knowledge to domestic and commercial structures in hurricane-prone regions will greatly diminish the damage (financial and social) to coastal regions of the United States in the coming decades. Specifically, a few observations are noted below: * Better building inspection during construction is required in general, and particular attention needs to be paid to structures with a post-disaster or refuge function such as schools and hospitals.

* Structural geometry can influence vulnerability to the wind. For example, hip roofs generally fare better than the equivalent gable design, and building appurtenances such as porch roofs and carports can experience higher-than-expected wind forces. * Unreinforced blockwork frequently blows out when the house is exposed to a large internal pressure after a window is broken (usually by windborne debris). All external blockwork should be reinforced and concrete filled. * The use of well-designed and tested [e.g. TR440, 1978; McDonald, 1976] storm shutters, or impact-resistant glass, to curtail flying debris damage to windows and doors would decrease the likelihood of a building envelope breach. The mechanism for large increases in the internal pressure can then be minimized. * Adequately fastened large roofing elements, such as rolled steel decking with a higher density of seam screws or clips on the roof perimeter and ridge, generally perform better than the small component built-up roofs using tiles or shingles. These larger elements distribute the local smallscale pressures to the structure quite efficiently. * Better detailing and fixing of wall/roof edge flashing is required. Frequently the vertical part of the edge flashing is deformed to a horizontal position by the wind; exposing the interior to winddriven water damage. Some research into flashing fastener design and other roofing questions is still required. * The unwise practice of toe-nailing roof trusses to the walls is still common. The lessons learned in Cyclone Tracy [Walker and Minor, 1979; Walker Minor and Marshall, 1975] revealed that more effective connectors, such as cyclone rods, triplegrips and galvanized straps, need to be applied in other hurricane-prone areas [ASTM E1886-97, 1997; TR440, 1978]. * The insurance industry should develop a rating scale (conceptually similar to that used for fire) to fiscally encourage owners and builders to design and construct more wind resistant buildings. This has commenced in some states and the industry is

developing a process to evaluate building inspection departments. * A retrofit technology is needed to identify deficient existing buildings and provide effective, but economical, strengthening to resist severe winds. * Improvements in technology transfer from researchers to builders is needed. Apart from the increased building inspections noted above, other items such as the development of building components that cannot be improperly installed are needed to improve the overall quality of the built environment. REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers, "Manual of Practice for Wind Tunnel Studies of Buildings and Structures - Number 67, Aerospace Division, 1999. American Society of Civil Engineers and American National Standards Institute, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures", ANSI/ASCE 7-98, 2000. American Society of Civil Engineers and American National Standards Institute, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures", ANSI/ASCE 7-95, 1996. Armitt, J.," The Simulation of the Atmospheric Boundary Layer in a Wind Tunnel", Central Electricity Research Laboratories Report No. RD/L/N83/66, England, August 1966. ASTM Standard E1886-97, "Standard Test Method for Performance of Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls, Doors and Storm Shutters Impacted by Missiles and Exposed to Cyclic Pressure Differentials", ASTM Inc., West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 1997. Batts, M.E., Cordes, M.R., Russel, L.R., Shaver, J.R. and Simiu, E., "Hurricane Wind Speeds in the United States", National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series, Number 124, 1980.

Cermak, J. E. (1995) Wind-tunnel Testing for Wind-Engineering Applications, invited lecture for the 80th anniversary celebration of the National Central University, Chungli, Taiwan, June. Cermak, J.E. and Cochran, L.S., "Physical Modelling of the Atmospheric Surface Layer", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 41-44, pages 935-946, 1992. Cermak, J.E., "Wind Tunnel Design for Physical Modeling of Atmospheric Boundary Layers", Journal of American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 107, No. EM3, June 1981. Cermak, J.E., "Wind Tunnel Testing of Structures", Journal of American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 103, No. EM6, December 1977. Cermak, J.E., "Aerodynamics of Buildings", Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 8, pages 75-106, 1976. Cermak, J.E., "Application of Fluid Mechanics to Wind Engineering", A Freeman Scholar Lecture, Journal of Fluids Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Volume 97, No. 1, March 1975. Cermak, J.E., "Laboratory Simulation of the Atmospheric Boundary Layer", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal, Volume 9, pages 1746-1754, September 1971. Cermak, J.E., "Wind Tunnel for the Study of Turbulence in the Atmospheric Surface Layer", Technical Report CER58-JEC42, Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion Laboratory, Colorado State University, 1958. Cochran, L.S. and English, E.C., "Reduction of Roof Wind Loads by Architectural Features, Architectural Science Review, Volume 40, Number 3, pages 79-87, September 1997.

Cochran, L.S. and Levitan, M.L., "Lessons From Hurricane Andrew", Architectural Science Review, Volume 37, Number 3, pages 115-121, September 1994. Cochran, L.S., "Low-Rise Architectural Aerodynamics: The Texas Tech University Experimental Building", Architectural Science Review, Volume 35, Number 4, pages 131-136, December 1992. Cochran, L.S. and Cermak, J.E., "Full and Model Scale Cladding Pressures on the Texas Tech University Experimental Building", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 41-44, 1589-1600, December 1992. Committee on Natural Disasters, "Hurricane Elena, Gulf Coast. August 29 to September 02, 1985 (Volume 2)", Division of Natural Hazards Mitigation, United States National Research Council, Washington, 121 pages, 1991. Cook, N.J., "The Designer's Guide to Wind Loading of Building Structures; Part 1", Building Research Establishment, Butterworths Publishers, First Edition, 1985. Darwin Reconstruction Commission, "Darwin Area Building Manual", Darwin Northern Territory, Australia, 1976. Davenport, A.G., "The Response of Supertall Buildings to Wind", Second Century of the Skyscraper (edited by C.S. Beedle), Council on Tall Buildings and the Urban Habitat, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1988. Davenport, A.G., Surry, T. and Stathopoulos, T., "Wind Loads on Low Rise Buildings: Final Report of Phases I and II", Boundary-Layer Wind Tunnel report number BLWT-SS8-1977, University of Western Ontario, 1977. Davenport, A.G., "The Relationship of Wind Structure to Wind Loading", Proceedings of Conference on Wind Effects on Structures, NLP, HMSO, 1965.

Davenport, A.G., "Rationale for Determining Design Wind Velocities", Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Structural Division, Volume 86, pages 3968, 1960. Derickson, R.G., "Finite Difference Methods for Minimizing False Wave Dispersion in Geophysical Flow Simulation", PhD Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 320 pages, Summer 1992. DOE, "Standard 1020-94: National Phenomena Hazards. Design and Evaluation Criteria for Department of Energy Facilities", Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Washington DC, 1994. Federal Emergency Management Agency and Federal Insurance Administration, "Building Performance: Hurricane Andrew in Florida. Observations, Recommendations and Technical Guidance", December 1992. Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Protecting Manufactured Homes from High Winds TR-75", July 1986. Gray, W.M., Sheaffer, J.D. and Landsea, C.W. "Climate Trends Associated with Multi-Decadal Variability of Intense Atlantic Hurricane Activity", Chapter 2 in "Hurricanes, Climate Change and Socioeconomic Impacts: A Current Perspective", edited by Diaz, H.F. and Pulwarty, R.S., Westview Press, 49 pages, 1996. He, J. and Song, C.C.S., "A Numerical Study of Wind Flow Around the TTU Building and The Roof Corner Vortex", Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering, Fort Collins, Colorado, August 1996. Hebert, P.J. and Taylor, G., "The Deadliest, Costliest and Most Intense United States Hurricanes of this Century (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts), NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC 18, January 1983.

Holmes, J.D., "Effect of Frequency Response on Peak Pressure Measurements", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 17, pages 1-9, 1984. Holmes, J.D., "Comparison of Model and Full- Scale Tests of the Aylesbury House", Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling Criteria and Techniques in Civil Engineering Applications, pages 605-618, Maryland, USA, 1982(a). Holmes, J.D., "Techniques and Modeling Criteria for the Measurement of External and Internal Pressures", Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling Criteria and Techniques in Civil Engineering Applications, pages 245-256, Maryland, USA, 1982(b). Holmes, J.D., "Comparative Measurements of Wind Pressure on a Model of the Full-Scale Experimental House at Aylesbury, England", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 6, Number 1 and 2, pages 181-182, July 1980. Holmes, J.D., Mean and Fluctuating Internal Pressures Induced by Wind, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, pages 435-450, July 1979. Hunt, J.C.R., "Turbulent Velocities Near, and Fluctuating Surface Pressures on Structures in Turbulent Wind", Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures, United Kingdom, 1975. Irwin, P.A. and Kochanski, W.W., "Measurement of Structural Wind Loads Using the High Frequency Pressure Integration Method", Proceedings of the XIII ASCE Structural Congress, Boston, April 1995. Leicester, R.H. and Reardon, G.F., "Wind Damage in Australia: A Pictorial Review", Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Division of Building Research, Highett, Victoria, 1976.

Leschziner, M.A., "Computational Modeling of Complex Turbulent Flow - Expectations, Reality and Prospects", The First International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering, pages 180-194, Tokyo, Japan, 1992. Levitan, M.L., Cochran, L.S. and Levitan, J.E., "Performance of Manufactured Housing in Louisiana During Hurricane Andrew", Proceedings of the ASCE Symposium on Hurricanes, Miami, Florida, pages 166-175, December 1993. Levitan, M.L., Mehta, K.C., Chok, C.V. and Millsaps, D.L., "An Overview of Texas Tech's Wind Engineering Field Research Laboratory", Proceedings of the 6th United States Conference on Wind Engineering, Houston, Texas, March 1989. McDonald, J.R., Vann, W.P. and Levitan, M., "A Systematic Survey of Manufactured Housing Performance in Hurricane Elena", Report MHI508 prepared for the Manufactured Housing Institute of Arlington Virginia by McDonald Mehta and Minor, Consulting Engineers, Lubbock, Texas, 52 pages, 1987. McDonald, J.R., "Simulation of Tornado Missile Trajectories", Institute for Disaster Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 1976. Meecham, D., Surry, D. and Davenport, A.G., "Wind Action on Hip and Gable Roofs", Proceedings of the Second Asia Pacific Symposium on Wind Engineering, Beijing, China, pages 501-508, June 1989. Mehta, K.C., Levitan, M.L., Iverson, R.E. and McDonald, J.R., "Roof Corner Pressures Measured in the Field on a Low Building", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 41, pages 181-192, 1992.

Melbourne, W.H., "Turbulence Effects on Maximum Surface Pressures; A Mechanism and Possibility of Reduction", Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Fort Collins, USA, pages 541-551, July 1979. Meng, Y., Matsui, M. and Hibi, K., "Numerical Study of the Wind Field in a Typhoon Boundary Layer", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 67-68, pages 437- 448, 1997. Meroney, R.N., "Engineering Research Underway for the 90's", Proceedings of the 1990 National Hurricane Conference , Houston, Texas, April 1990. Minor, J.E., "Windborne Debris and the Building Envelope", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 53, pages 207227, 1994. Murakami, S., "Comparisons of Various Turbulence Models Applied to a Bluff Body", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 46-47, pages 21-36, 1993. Murakami, S., Mochida, A. and Hayashi, Y., "Examining the K- Model by Means of a Wind Tunnel Test and Large Eddy Simulation of the Turbulence Structure Around a Cube", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 35, pages 87-100, 1990. Nicholls, M.E., Pielke, R.A. and Meroney, R.N., "Large Eddy Simulation of Microburst Winds Flowing Around a Building", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 46-47, pages 229-237, 1993. Peterka, J.A. and Shahid, S., Design Gust Wind Speeds for the United States American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 124, I.2, pages 207-214, February 1998. Peterka, J.A., Hosoya, N., Dodge, S., Cochran, L.S. and Cermak, J.E., "Area Average Peak Pressures in a Gable Roof Vortex Region", Eighth United States Conference on Wind Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, June 1997.

Peterka, J.A., Cochran, L.S., Pielke, R.A. and Nicholls, M.E., "Progress in Modeling External Flows Around Buildings", American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Fluids Division Summer Meeting, San Diego, California, USA, July 711, 1996. Peterka, J.A., Cochran, L.S., Boggs, D.W., Hosoya, N. and Downing, M., "Simultaneous Peak Pressure Measurements in the Wind Tunnel", Proceedings of the ICBEST-94 Conference, Singapore, pages 354-359, December 1994. Peterka, J.A., "Improved Extreme Wind Prediction for the United States", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 41, pages 533-541, 1992. Peterka, J.A. and Shahid, S., "Task Six Progress Report", Technical Assessment and Advisory Council, CSU/TTU Cooperative Project on Wind Engineering, September 1992. Peterka, J.A., Meroney, R.N. and Kothari, K.M., "Wind Flow Patterns About Buildings", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 21, pages 21-38, 1985. Peterka, J.A., and Cermak, J.E., "Adverse Wind Loading Induced by Adjacent Buildings", Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 102, No ST3, 533-548, 1976. Powell, M.D. and Black, P.G. The relationship of hurricane reconnaissance flight-level wind measurements to winds measured by NOAAs oceanic platforms, Proceedings of the Sixth United States Conference on Wind Engineering, University of Houston, pp. A3.10-A-3.21, March, 1989. Queensland Government Printer, "Home Building Code, Appendix 4. Standard Building By-Laws, 1975", Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, enacted 1982.

Ravindra, M.K., Nafday, A.M. and McDonald, J.R., "State of the Art and Current Research Activities in Extreme Winds Relating to the Design and Evaluation of Nuclear Power Plants", Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report, 1993. Powell, M.D. and Black, P.G., "The Relationship of Hurricane Reconnaissance Flight-Level Wind Measurements to Winds Measured by NOAA's Oceanic Platforms", Proceedings of the Sixth United States Conference on Wind Engineering, University of Houston, pages A3.10-A3.21, March 1989. Reinhold, T.A., Vickery, P.J. and Powell, M.D., "Wind Speeds In Hurricane Andrew: Myths and Reality", Proceedings of the American Concrete Institute Annual Convention, San Juan, Puerto Rica, 18 pages, October 1992. SBCCI, "Standard for Determining Impact Resistance from Windborne Debris, SSTD 12-97", Southern Building Code Congress International, Birmingham, Alabama, 1997. SBCCI, "Standard for Hurricane Resistant Residential Construction, SSTD 10-97", Southern Building Code Congress International, Birmingham, Alabama, 1997. Simiu, E. and Scanlan, R.H., "Wind Effects on Structures: an Introduction to Wind Engineering", Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996. SFBC, "South Florida Building Code", Metropolitan Dade County, Miami, Florida, adopted December 14 1993; Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, adopted February 10 1994. Smith, T.L., "Hurricane Andrew, A Preliminary Assessment", Professional Roofing Magazine, page 58, September 1992. Standards Association of Australia, "AS1170-Part 2, Wind Loadings", Standards House, 80 Arthur Street, North Sydney, NSW, Australia, 1989.

Stathopoulos, T., Surry, D. and Davenport, A.G., Internal Pressure Characteristics of Low-Rise Buildings Due to Wind Action, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, pages 451-463, July 1979. Surry, D., "Recent and Current Research Into Wind Loading of Low Buildings at the University of Western Ontario", Proceedings of the 6th United States Conference on Wind Engineering, Houston, Texas, March 1989. Surry, D. and Johnson, G.L., "Comparisons Between Wind Tunnel and Full Scale Estimates of Wind Loads on a Mobile Home", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 23, pages 165-180, 1986. TCPIA, "Texas Catastrophe Property Insurance Association Building Code for Windstorm Resistant Construction", Texas Department of Insurance, Austin, Texas, 1997. TR440, "Guidelines for the Testing and Evaluation of Products for Cyclone-Prone Areas, Technical Record 440", Experimental Building Station, Department of Housing and Construction, Chatswood, Sydney, 1978 (reprinted 1983). Vickery, P.J. and Twisdale, L.A., "Wind-Field and Filling Models for Hurricane Wind Speed Predictions", Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 121, Number 11, pages 1700-1709, 1995. Walker, G.R. and Minor, J.E., "Cyclone Tracy in Retrospect: A Review of its Impact on the Australian Community", Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, pages 1327-1337, July 1979.

Walker, G.R., "The Application of Wind Engineering Technology to the Mitigation of Damage to Housing from Tropical Cyclones - An Australian Achievement", Proceedings of the International Conference on the Impact of Disasters, University of California, Los Angeles, California, July 1991. Walker, G.R., Minor, J.E. and Marshall, R.D., "The Darwin Cyclone, Valuable Lesson in Structural Design", ASCE Civil Engineering Magazine, Volume 45, Number 12, pages 82-86, December 1975. Womble, J.A., Yeatts, B.B, Cermak, J.E. and Mehta, K.C, "Internal Wind Pressures in a Full-and SmallScale Building", Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Volume 3, New Delhi, India, pages 1079-1090, 1995.