Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 6 Wind Loads - C6-1
Chapter 6 Wind Loads - C6-1
Outline
6.1 General
6.1.1 Scope of application
6.1.2 Estimation principle
6.1.3 Buildings for which particular wind load or wind induced vibration is taken into account
6.2 Horizontal Wind Loads on Structural Frames
6.2.1 Scope of application
6.2.2 Equation
6.3 Roof Wind Load on Structural Frames
6.3.1 Scope of application
6.3.2 Procedure for estimating wind loads
6.4 Wind Loads on Components/Cladding
6.4.1 Scope of application
6.4.2 Procedure for estimating wind loads
A6.1 Wind Speed and Velocity Pressure
A6.1.1 Velocity pressure
A6.1.2 Design wind speed
A6.1.3 Basic wind speed
A6.1.4 Wind directionality factor
A6.1.5 Wind speed profile factor
A6.1.6 Turbulence intensity and turbulence scale
A6.1.7 Return period conversion factor
A6.2 Wind force coefficients and wind pressure coefficients
A6.2.1 Procedure for estimating wind force coefficients
A6.2.2 External pressure coefficients for structural frames
A6.2.3 Internal pressure coefficients for structural frames
A6.2.4 Wind force coefficients for design of structural frames
A6.2.5 Peak external pressure coefficients for components/cladding
A6.2.6 Factor for effect of fluctuating internal pressures
A6.2.7 Peak wind force coefficients for components/cladding
A6.3 Gust Effect Factors
A6.3.1 Gust effect factor for along-wind loads on structural frames
A6.3.2 Gust effect factor for roof wind loads on structural frames
A6.4 Across-wind Vibration and Resulting Wind Load
A6.4.1 Scope of application
– C6-2 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
A6.4.2 Procedure
A6.5 Torsional Vibration and Resulting Wind Load
A6.5.1 Scope of application
A6.5.2 Procedure
A6.6 Horizontal Wind Loads on Lattice Structural Frames
A6.6.1 Scope of application
A6.6.2 Procedure for estimating wind loads
A6.6.3 Gust effect factor
A6.7 Vortex Induced Vibration
A6.7.1 Scope of application
A6.7.2 Vortex induced vibration and resulting wind load on buildings with circular sections
A6.7.3 Vortex induced vibration and resulting wind load on building components with circular
sections
A6.8 Combination of Wind Loads
A6.8.1 Scope of application
A6.8.2 Combination of horizontal wind loads for buildings not satisfying the conditions of
Eq.(6.1)
A6.8.3 Combination of horizontal wind loads for buildings satisfying the conditions of Eq.(6.1)
A6.8.4 Combination of horizontal wind loads and roof wind loads
A6.9 Mode Shape Correction Factor
A6.9.1 Scope of application
A6.9.2 Procedure
A6.10 Response Acceleration
A6.10.1 Scope of application
A6.10.2 Maximum response acceleration in along-wind direction
A6.10.3 Maximum response acceleration in across-wind direction
A6.10.4 Maximum torsional response acceleration
A6.11 Simplified Procedure
A6.11.1 Scope of application
A.6.11.2 Procedure
A6.12 Effects of Neighboring Tall Buildings
A6.13 1-Year-Recurrence Wind Speed
References
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-3 –
Outline
Notation
Notations used in the main text of this chapter are shown here.
Uppercase Letter
A (m2): projected area at height Z
AR (m2): subject area
AC (m2): subject area of components/cladding
A0 (m2): whole plane area of one face of lattice structure
AF (m2): projected area of one face of lattice structure
B (m): building breadth
B1 (m): building length in span direction
B2 (m): building length in ridge direction
B0 , BH (m): width of lattice structure in ground and width at height H
BD : background excitation factor for lattice structure
C1 , C 2 , C3 : parameters determining topography factor Eg and EI
C D , C R , C X , C Y : wind force coefficients
C L' , CT' : rms overturning moment coefficient and rms torsional moment coefficient
Ce : exposure factor, which is generally 1.0 and shall be 1.4 for open terrain with few
obstructions (Category II). When wind speed is expected to increase due to local
topography, this factor shall be increased accordingly.
Cg : overturning moment coefficient in along-wind direction
Lowercase Letter
aDmax , aLmax (m/s2), aTmax (rad/s2): maximum response acceleration in along-wind,
across-wind and torsional directions at top of building
b (m): projected width of member
f (m): rise
f1 (Hz): The smaller of f L and f T
f D , f L , f T (Hz): natural frequency for first mode in along-wind, across-wind and torsional
directions
f R (Hz): natural frequency for first mode of roof beam
g aD , g aL , g aT : peak factors for response accelerations in along-wind, across-wind and
torsional directions
g D , g L , g T : peak factors for wind loads in along-wind, across-wind and torsional
directions
h (m): eaves height
k1 : factor for aspect ratio
k 2 : factor for surface roughness
k 3 : factor for end effects
k 4 : factor for three demensionality
k C : area reduction factor
k rW : return period conversion factor
k Z : factor for vertical profile for wind pressure coefficients or wind force coefficients
l (m): smaller value of 4 H and B , minimum value of 4 H , B1 and B2 , member
length
la1 (m): smaller value of H and B1
la2 (m): smaller value of H and B2
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-7 –
Greek Alphabet
α : exponent of power law for wind speed profile
β : exponent of power law for vibration mode
γ : load combination factor
δ , δ L , δ T : mass damping parameter for vortex induced vibration, across-wind vibration
and torsional vibration
φ D , φ L , φT : mode correction factor for vortex induced vibration, across-wind vibration and
torsional vibration
ζ D , ζ L , ζ T : critical damping ratio for first translational and torsional modes
ζ R : critical damping ratio for first mode of roof beam
ϕ : solidity
λ : mode correction factor of general wind force
λU : U 500 / U 0
μ : first mode shape in each direction
ν D (Hz): level crossing factor
θ (°): roof angle, angle of attack to member
θ S (°): inclination of topography
ρ (kg/m3): air density
ρ S (kg/m3): building density which is M /( HDm DB )
ρ LT : correlation coefficient between across-wind vibration and torsional vibration
6.1 General
small-scale phenomena several hundred meters wide at most having a rotational wind with a rapid
atmospheric pressure descent. The characteristics of the strong wind and pressure fluctuation caused
by tornados are not known. The number of occurrences of down-bursts and tornados is relatively large,
but their probability of attacking a particular site is very small compared with that of the tropical or
extratropical cyclones. However, the winds caused by down-bursts and tornados are very strong, so
they often fatally damage buildings. These recommendations focus on strong winds caused by tropical
or extratropical cyclones. However, the minimum wind speed takes into account the influence of
tornadoes and down-bursts.
(2) Wind loads on structural frames and wind loads on components/cladding
The wind loads provided in these recommendations is composed of those for structural frames and
those for components/cladding. The former are for the design of structural frames such as columns and
beams. The latter are for the design of finishings and bedding members of components/cladding and
their joints. Wind loads on structural frames and on components/cladding are different, because there
are large differences in their sizes, dynamic characteristics and dominant phenomena and behaviors.
Wind loads on structural frames are calculated on the basis of the elastic response of the whole
building against fluctuating wind forces. Wind loads on components/cladding are calculated on the
basis of fluctuating wind forces acting on a small part.
Wind resistant design for components/cladding has been inadequate until now. They play an
important role in protecting the interior space from destruction by strong wind. Therefore, wind
resistant design for components/cladding should be just as careful as that for structural frames.
vibration direction
wind turbulence vibration direction vortices
Fluctuating wind pressures act on building surfaces due to the above factors. Fluctuating wind
pressures change temporally, and their dynamic characteristics are not uniform at all positions on the
building surface. Therefore, it is better to evaluate wind load on structural frames based on overall
building behavior and that on components/cladding based on the behavior of individual building parts.
For most buildings, the effect of fluctuating wind force generated by wind turbulence is predominant.
In this case, horizontal wind load on structural frames in the along-wind direction is important.
However, for relatively flexible buildings with a large aspect ratio, horizontal wind loads on structural
frames in the across-wind and torsional directions should not be ignored. For roof loads, the
fluctuating wind force caused by separation flow from the leading edge of the roof often predominates.
Therefore, wind load on structural frames is divided into two parts: horizontal wind load on structural
frames and roof wind load on structural frames.
along-wind load
horizontal wind load across-wind load
wind load on
structural frames torsional wind load
wind load roof wind load
wind load on
components/cladding
wind load on
simplified structural frames
procedure
small-scale building wind load on
components/cladding
Figure 6.1.2 Classification of wind loads
Combination of wind loads in the along-wind, across-wind and torsional directions have not been
taken into consideration positively so far, because the design wind speed has been used without
considering the effect of wind direction. However, with the introduction of wind directionality,
combination of wind loads in the along-wind, across-wind and torsional directions has become
necessary. Hence, it has been decided to adopt explicitly a regulation for combination of wind loads in
along-wind, across-wind and torsional directions.
(3) Wind directionality factor
Occurrence and intensity of wind speed at a construction site vary for each wind direction with
geographic location and large-scale topographic effects. Furthermore, the characteristics of wind
forces acting on a building vary for each wind direction. Therefore, rational wind resistant design can
be applied by investigating the characteristics of wind speed at a construction site and wind forces
acting on the building for each wind direction. These recommendations introduce the wind
directionality factor in calculating the design wind speed for each wind direction individually. In
evaluating the wind directionality factor, the influence of typhoons, which is the main factor of strong
winds in Japan, should be taken into account. However, it was difficult to quantify the probability
distribution of wind speed due to a typhoon from meteorological observation records over only about
70 years, because the occurrence of typhoons hitting a particular point is not necessarily high. In these
recommendations, the wind directionality factor was determined by conducting Monte Carlo
simulation of typhoons, and analysis of observation data provided by the Metrological Agency.
(4) Reference height and velocity pressure
The reference height is generally the mean roof height of the building, as shown in Fig.6.1.3. The
wind loads are calculated from the velocity pressure at this reference height. The vertical distribution
of wind load is reflected in the wind force coefficients and wind pressure coefficients. However, the
wind load for a lattice type structure shall be calculated from the velocity pressure at each height, as
shown in Fig.6.1.3.
qH
qZ
qH H
qH
Z
H H
dynamic characteristics of the building. The equivalent static wind load producing the maximum
loading effect is given as the design wind load. For the response of the building against strong wind,
the first mode is predominant and higher frequency modes are not predominant for most buildings.
The horizontal wind load (along-wind load) distribution for structural frames is assumed to be equal to
the mean wind load distribution, because the first mode shape resembles the mean building
displacement. Specifically, the equivalent wind load is obtained by multiplying the gust effect factor,
which is defined as the ratio of the instantaneous value to the mean value of the building response, to
the mean wind load. The characteristics of the wind force acting on the roof are influenced by the
features of the fluctuating wind force caused by separation flow from the leading edge of the roof and
the inner pressure, which depends on the degree of sealing of the building. Therefore, the
characteristics of roof wind load on structural frames are different from those of the along-wind load
on structural frames. Thus, the roof wind load on structural frames cannot be evaluated by the same
procedure as for the along-wind load on structural frames. Here, the gust effect factor is given when
the first mode is predominant and assuming elastic dynamic behavior of the roof beam under wind
load.
(6) Wind load on components/cladding
In the calculation of wind load on components/cladding, the peak exterior wind pressure coefficient
and the coefficient of inner wind pressure variation effect are prescribed, and the peak wind force
coefficient is calculated as their difference. Only the size effect is considered. The resonance effect is
ignored, because the natural frequency of components/cladding is generally high. The wind load on
components/cladding is prescribed as the maximum of positive pressure and negative pressure for
each part of the components/cladding for wind from every direction, while the wind load on structural
frames is prescribed for the wind direction normal to the building face. Therefore, for the wind load on
components/cladding, the peak wind force coefficient or the peak exterior wind pressure coefficient
must be obtained from wind tunnel tests or another verification method.
(7) Wind loads in across-wind and torsional directions
It is difficult to predict responses in the across-wind and torsional directions theoretically like
along-wind responses. However, a prediction formula is given in these recommendations based on the
fluctuating overturning moment in the across-wind direction and the fluctuating torsional moment for
the first vibration mode in each direction.
(8) Vortex induced vibration and aeroelastic instability
Vortex-induced vibration and aeroelastic instability can occur with flexible buildings or structural
members with very large aspect ratios. Criteria for across-wind and torsional vibrations are provided
for buildings with rectangular sections. Criteria for vortex-induced vibrations are provided for
buildings and structural members with circular sections. If these criteria indicate that vortex-induced
vibration or aeroelastic instability will occur, structural safety should be confirmed by wind tunnel
tests and so on. A formula for wind load caused by vortex-induced vibrations is also provided for
buildings or structural members with circular sections.
– C6-12 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
Start
A6.2.2 External wind pressure coefficient A6.2.5 Peak external pressure coefficients
A6.2.3 Internal pressure coefficients A6.2.6 Factor for effect of fluctuating internal
A6.2.4 Wind force coefficients pressures
A6.2.7 Peak wind force coefficient
6.2 Horizontal wind load 6.3 Roof wind load 6.4 Wind load on
components/cladding
End
6.1.3 Buildings for which particular wind load or wind induced vibration need to be taken into
account
(1) Buildings for which horizontal wind loads on structural frames in across-wind and torsional
directions need to be taken into account
Horizontal wind loads on structural frames imply along-wind load, across-wind load and torsional
wind load. Both across-wind load and torsional wind load must be estimated for wind-sensitive
buildings that satisfy Eq.(6.1). Figure 6.1.5 shows the definition of wind direction, 3 component wind
loads and building shape.
B D
along-wind
H
torsion
across-wind
wind
Both across-wind vibration and torsional vibration are caused mainly by vortices generated in the
building’s wake. These vibrations are not so great for low-rise buildings. However, with an increase in
the aspect ratio caused by the presence of high-rise buildings, a vortex with a strong period uniformly
generated in the vertical direction, and across-wind and torsional wind forces increase. However, with
increase in building height, the natural frequency decreases and approaches the vortex shedding
frequency. As a result, resonance components increase and building responses become large. In
general, responses to across-wind vibration and torsional vibration depending on wind speed increase
more rapidly than responses to along-wind vibration. Under normal conditions, along-wind responses
to low wind speed are larger than across-wind responses. However, across-wind responses to high
wind speed are larger than along-wind responses. The wind speed at which the degrees of along-wind
response and across-wind response change places with each other differs depending on the height,
shape and vibration characteristics of the building. The condition with regard to the aspect ratio of
Eq.(6.1) has been established through investigation of the relationship between the magnitude of
along-wind loads and across-wind loads for flat terrain subcategory II and a basic wind speed of 40m/s
assuming 180kg/m3 building density, f1 = 1 /(0.024 H ) (Hz) natural frequency of the primary mode
and 1% damping ratio for an ordinary building. Therefore, it is desirable to estimate across-wind and
torsional wind loads even for buildings of light weight and small damping to which Eq.(6.1) is not
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-15 –
applicable.
Furthermore, for flat-plane buildings with small torsional stiffness or buildings with large
eccentricity whose translational natural frequency and torsional natural frequency approximate each
other, it is also desirable to estimate the torsional wind loads even where Eq.(6.1) is not applicable to
those buildings.
The discriminating conditional formula shown in this chapter was derived for a building with a
rectangular plane. It is possible to apply Eq.(6.1) to a building with a plane that is slightly different
from rectangular by regarding B and D roughly as projected breadth and a depth. For values of B
and D changed in the vertical direction, the wind force acting on the upper part has a major effect on
the response. Therefore, a representative value for the upper part should used for the computation.
Under normal conditions, a value in the vicinity of 2/3 of the building height is chosen in most cases.
The computation of Eq.(6.1) using a smaller value for the upper part yields a conservative value.
(2) Vortex resonance and aeroelastic instability
It is feared that aeroelastic instabilities such as vortex-induced vibration, galloping and flutter occur
in buildings with low natural frequency and are high in comparison with their breadth and depth, as
well as in slender members. The conditions for estimation of aeroelastic instability in both across-wind
vibration and torsional vibration for building with rectangular planes as well as the conditions for
estimation of vortex-induced vibrations for a building with a circular plane are given based on wind
tunnel test results and the field measurement results 1)-6). The method for estimating the wind load for a
building with a circular plan when vortex-induced vibration occurs is shown in A6.7. It may well be
that vortex-induced vibration and aeroelastic instability will occur in a slender building with a
triangular or an elliptical plan. Therefore, attention must be paid to this.
The first condition required for estimating aeroelastic instability and vortex-induced vibration is the
aspect ratio ( H / BD or H / Dm ). Aeroelastic instability as well as vortex-induced vibration does
not occur easily in buildings with a small aspect ratio. Under this recommendation, the aspect ratio for
estimating both aeroelastic instability and vortex-induced vibration was set to 4 or more and 7 or more,
respectively. The second condition for estimating non-dimensional wind speed is ( U / f BD or
U / fDm ). The occurrence of aeroelastic instability and vortex-induced vibration is dominated by the
non-dimensional wind speed, which is determined by the representative breadth of the building, its
natural frequency and wind speed. The non-dimensional critical wind speed for aeroelastic instability
depends upon the mass damping parameter, which is determined by the side ratio, the turbulence
characteristics of an approaching flow and the mass and damping ratio of a building. Thus, the
non-dimensional critical wind speed with regard to the estimation of aeroelastic instability of a
building with a rectangular plane was provided as the function for those parameters. The
non-dimensional wind speed for vortex-induced vibration of a building with a circular plan is almost
independent of this parameter. Therefore, the value for non-dimensional critical wind speed is fixed.
The non-dimensional wind speed for estimating aeroelastic instability and vortex-induced vibration is
set at 0.83(=1/1.2) times the non-dimensional critical wind speed. This is because it is known that
– C6-16 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
aeroelastic instability or vortex-induced vibration occurs within a period shorter than 10 min, which is
the evaluation time for wind speed prescribed in this recommendation, and that the uncertainty of the
non-dimensional wind speed including errors in experimental values is taken into account.
Furthermore, the damping ratio of a building is required for the computation of the building’s mass
damping parameter. It is thus recommended that the damping ratio of a building be estimated through
reference to “Damping in Buildings” 7).
B D
WD
H
wind
Air density ρ varies with temperature, ambient pressure and humidity. However, the influence of
humidity is usually neglected. In these recommendations, the air density is taken as ρ = 1.22 (kg/m3),
which corresponds to a temperature of 15°C and an ambient pressure of 1013 hPa.
directionality effect was reflected by introducing the wind directionality factor, which is defined as the
wind speed ratio for a certain wind direction to the basic wind speed, as defined in A6.1.4.
into data at a height of 10m over terrain category II by utilizing a method for evaluating the terrain
roughness from the pseudo-gust factor (ratio of daily maximum instantaneous wind speed divided by
daily maximum wind speed) and elevation of the measurement point14). The details of the method are
as follows. The pseudo-gust factors were first averaged according to the year and wind direction. Then,
referring to the averaged pseudo-gust factors, a terrain roughness category was identified in which the
same gust-factor was given using the profiles of mean wind speeds (defined in A6.1.5) and turbulence
intensity (defined in A6.1.6). For this calculation, the terrain roughness category was treated as a
continuous variable.
Figure A6.1.2 shows examples of the annual variance of terrain roughness for four dominant wind
directions measured at Fukuoka Meteorological Station, in which the symbols are for the calculated
values and the lines are the results of linear approximation. The value of roughness category was
assumed to be between I and V. This shows that the roughness category changes due to urbanization
and the roughness category varies with wind direction.
Historical changes of the directional terrain roughness were utilized for homogenization of wind
speed records at meteorological stations and calibration of wind speeds near the ground surface in the
extreme value analysis and the typhoon model.
V V
Flat terrain categories
IV IV
III III
II II
I I
V V
Flat terrain categories
Flat terrain categories
IV IV
III III
II II
I I
typhoon, and otherwise as non-typhoon. The wind speed data measured in a typhoon area were
analyzed by Monte-Carlo simulation based on a typhoon model to obtain the extreme value
distribution, while those measured in a non-typhoon area were analyzed by the modified Jensen &
Franck method16) in which wind speed data smaller than the highest value were also included as
independent storms for analysis.
4) Typhoon simulation technique
In Japan, typhoons are the dominant wind climates generating strong winds that need to be taken
into account in wind resistant design, due to their high wind speeds and large influence areas. An
average of 28 typhoons occur annually, of which roughly 10% land. Typhoons sometimes do not pass
near metrological stations, so severe wind damage may occur without large wind speeds being
observed. In order to improve the instability of the statistical data (sampling error), a typhoon
simulation method was adopted for evaluating the strong wind caused by typhoons.
Figure A6.1.3 shows a general procedure of this typhoon simulation method. The pressure fields of
typhoons are modeled by several parameters, i.e. central pressure depth, radius to maximum winds,
moving speed, etc. The non-exceedance probability of strong wind in the target area is evaluated by
generating virtual typhoons according to the results of statistical analysis of pressure field parameters.
This Monte-Carlo simulation method is considered in recommendations of other countries. For
example, in the ASCE17) standard, simulation is required as a principle for evaluation of the design
wind speed in hurricane-prone regions. In this standard, the simulation results were adopted as the
value of basic wind speed. In order to improve the accuracy of typhoon simulation18), correlations
between gradient winds and near-ground winds and correlations among parameters of typhoon
pressure fields in each area are considered.
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-23 –
moving velocity
wind speed field
gradient wind
central pressure depth
correlation of wind speed
and direction based on
radius of maximum wind observed records
Probability distributions surface wind
return period r
statistics of
historical typhoons
The non-exceedance probability of the annual maximum wind speed caused by a typhoon was
obtained from the typhoon simulation. For strong wind not caused by a typhoon, extreme value
analysis was conducted on data observed from 1961-2000. The results obtained from typhoon and
non-typhoon conditions were combined to evaluate the return period of annual maximum wind speed.
Figure A6.1.4 shows an example of the maximum wind speed evaluated at K city.
– C6-24 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
Figure A6.1.5 100-year-recurrence 10-minutes mean wind speed at 10m above ground over a flat
and open terrain in winter (m/s)
– C6-26 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
wind direction
N KD=0.9
0.9
NW NE
0.85 0.95
W E
1.0 0.85
SW SE
0.95 0.85
S
0.9
(a) Where the wind direction falls in a 22.5 degree sector as shown in Table A6.1.1
wind direction
N
larger value of 0.9 and 0.95
0.9
KD = 0.95
NW NE
0.85 0.95
W E
1.0 0.85
SW SE
0.95 0.85
S
0.9
(b) Where the wind direction does not fall in a 22.5 degree sector as shown in Table A6.1.1
Figure A6.1.6 Selection of the wind directionality factor (when using the wind force coefficient of
buildings with rectangular horizontal sections defined in these recommendations)
– C6-28 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
Where wind directionality effects are not considered, this corresponds to the condition where the
wind directionality factors equal unity for all directions. This leads a conservative design compared to
the condition when the wind directionality effects are considered.
Whether or not wind directionality effects are considered corresponds to whether or not wind
directionality factors are adopted. As shown in Table A6.1.1, the wind directionality factors are less
than unity, and are defined as values for evaluating 100-year-recurrence wind loads. It is possible to
achieve a more rational design by considering the orientation of the building plan from the viewpoint
of wind directionality factor. In other words, the wind loads are conservative if wind directionality
factor is not considered. However, the amount of this overestimation depends on the orientation of the
building, and not constant for all buildings. When wind directionality effects are considered, because
the wind directionality factor is less than unity, the wind loads will be smaller than those predicted by
conventional method, in which wind directionality is not taken into account. Designers should be
conscious of the fact that safety level decreases when wind directionality factor is utilized.
The wind directionality factors defined in these recommendations are valid only for locations near
major metrological stations. The wind directionality factor defined in Table A6.1.1 can be applied to
construction sites near metrological stations, but they cannot be applied to construction sites far from
metrological stations and influenced by large-scale topography. For these situations, special
consideration should be given, for instance, by not using the wind directionality factors i.e. by setting
KD = 1 .
height
Zb
Figure 6.1.8 shows an example of mean wind speed profiles measured in natural wind22), in which
the wind speed profiles measured simultaneously at coastal and inland locations are compared. As
mentioned before, the wind speed near the ground decelerates due to the inland terrain roughness. As a
result, there is great difference between the wind speed profiles in the two locations.
The exposure factor E r of the flat terrain, shown in A6.1.5(2) 2), is defined with the above
considerations included. Figure A6.1.9 shows E r for each terrain category. The exposure factor is the
ratio of wind speed at a given height Z for each terrain category to the wind speed at 10m over
terrain roughness category II.
Figure A6.1.8 Example of mean wind speed profiles measured simultaneously at the coast of Tokyo
bay and a suburban residential area 12km away22)
terrain category
Exposure factor E r
Terrain category IV is mainly where many 4-9 story buildings stand. Local central cities are typical
of this category. Areas with a building area ratio larger than 20%, and a high-rise building ratio larger
than 30% belong to this category.
In terrain category V, tall buildings of 10 or more stories are close together at a high density. Central
regions of large cities such as Tokyo and Osaka belong to this category.
In an area where the building purpose, floor area ratio and building coverage ratio are the same, the
terrain can usually be considered uniform. Typically, in the wide area around the construction site,
the terrain roughness is not usually identical. It is common for several terrain categories to co-exist.
When the terrain roughness changes downstream, a new boundary layer gradually develops, and the
developing process depends on whether the change is from smooth to rough or rough to smooth.
Figure A6.1.11 illustrates approximately the development of a new boundary layer with a terrain
roughness change from smooth to rough. When the terrain roughness changes from smooth to rough,
the new boundary layer develops slowly, so the fully developed boundary layer over the new
roughness can not be anticipated if the fetch downstream is not long enough. As a result, a wind speed
profile corresponding to the new roughness category can not be adopted. Thus, if there is a terrain
roughness change from smooth to rough within a distance of the smaller of 40 H and 3km upstream
of the construction site, the terrain category at the upstream region before the roughness change will
be adopted as the terrain category for the construction site.
developing internal
boundary layer
Figure A6.1.11 Developing process of new boundary layer when terrain roughness changes from
smooth to rough
In determining the terrain category for a given wind direction, the upwind area inside a 45 degree
sector within a distance of the smaller of 40 H and 3km of the construction site will be counted.
When there is a terrain roughness change upwind of the construction site, a weighting average of
the wind speed profile on roughness and the fetch distance is conducted in AS/NZS 1170.220) to
determine the exposure factor.
However, in the recommendations, the overall terrain roughness in the upwind sector is adopted as
the terrain category in this direction if there is no sudden roughness change. Generally, the wind load
will be overestimated when a smoother surface roughness category is utilized.
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-33 –
For an urban area centered on a railway station, larger buildings are closely spaced near the station.
Figure A6.1.12 shows an example of how to determine the terrain category if a construction site is
near a railway station, in which the roughness changes from smooth to rough downstream. In this case,
where there is a sudden roughness change within a distance of the smaller of 40 H and 3km upwind
of the construction site, the smoother terrain category upwind before the terrain roughness change will
be selected.
Wind
Category I
Category III
smaller of
40H and 3km
The terrain roughness
in this wind direction
should be recognized as
category I.
Figure A6.1.12 Selection of terrain category (with terrain roughness change from smooth to rough)
If the terrain roughness changes from rough to smooth, the terrain category after the terrain
roughness change is selected. However, if there is a smooth area in a rough area, e.g. a park in a
downtown area, it is sometimes necessary to consider the acceleration of wind speed near the ground
downstream.
Generally, careful consideration should be given in the determination of terrain category, because of
the arbitrariness.
(3) Topography factor
When air flow passes escarpments or ridge-shaped topography as shown in Fig.A6.1.13, the flow is
blocked on the front of the escarpment and the mean wind speed decreases. Then the flow starts to
accelerate uphill, resulting in a mean wind speed larger than that of the flat terrain from the middle of
the upwind slope to the top of the topographic feature. If the upwind slope is not large enough, the
mean wind speed is larger than that over the flat terrain over a long region downstream of the hill top.
However, if the upwind slope is sufficiently steep to establish separation downstream of the hill top,
the wind speed downstream of the hill top near the ground is smaller than that of the flat terrain.
– C6-34 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
Figure A.6.1.13 Change of mean wind speed over an escarpment (thin solid line and thick solid line
are for the mean wind speed over flat terrain and escarpments respectively)
Equation A6.5 for the topography factor is based on the results of wind tunnel experiments of
two-dimensional escarpments and ridge-shaped topography with different slopes23), 24), 25)
. The
experiments were carried out with an approach flow corresponding to terrain category II. The models
corresponded to escarpments and ridge-shaped topography with heights between several tens of meters
to 100m with smooth surfaces. The ratio of the mean wind speed over the escarpments to the
counterpart over flat terrain was obtained from the experiments. The height Z in Eq.(A6.5) is the
height from the local ground surface over the topographic feature. The slope angle is defined with the
aid of the horizontal distance from the top of the topographic feature to the point where the height is
half the topography height.
Although, the wind speed decreases upwind of the escarpment and in the separation region
downstream of steep topography, the topography factor in these regions is defined as 1 in the
recommendations, as shown in Figs.A6.1.14 and A6.1.15, because only acceleration of wind speed is
considered24).
Figure A6.1.14 Wind speed-up ratio over a two-dimensional escarpment with an inclination angle of
60 degrees. The symbols are for the experimental results, and the solid lines are for
Eq.(A6.5)
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-35 –
Figure A6.1.15 Wind speed-up ratio over a two-dimensional ridge-shaped topography with
inclination angle of 30 degrees. The symbols are for the experimental results, and
the solid lines are for Eq.(A6.5)
Tables A6.4 and A6.5 show the values of the parameters in Eq.(A6.5) for the escarpment and
ridge-shaped topography determined from experiment. For a particular location and a particular slope
angle, not shown in these tables, the topography factor can be obtained by linear interpolation. The
following is an example of the procedure for calculating the topography factor of a 50-degree
escarpment, at a location with a distance X s = 1.6 H s downstream of the top of the escarpment at a
height Z = 1.5 H s .
z Calculate the topography factor Eg1 and E g 2 at X s / H s = 1 and 2 for the inclination
angle of 45 degrees from Eq.(A6.5), and then calculate the topography factor E g12 at
X s / H s = 1.6 by linear interpolation according to the following equation:
Eg12 = 0.4 Eg1 + 0.6 Eg 2
z Calculate the topography factor Eg 34 for the inclination angle of 60 degrees in the same
way as for the inclination angle of 45 degrees.
z Conduct linear interpolation for topography factors E g12 and Eg 34 , with respect to the
inclination angle to achieve the topography factor at an inclination angle of 50 degrees
and X s / H s = 1.6 from the following equation.
2 1
Eg = Eg12 + Eg34
3 3
If the inclination angle is less than 7.5 degrees, the topography effect can be neglected.
The topography factor calculated from Eq.(A6.5) is shown in Figs.A6.1.14 and A6.1.15 by a solid
line. It agrees well with the experimental data at all sections with speedup..
Equation (A6.5) is for the condition in which the air flow passes at right angles to the
two-dimensional escarpments and ridge-shaped topography. However, strict two-dimensional hills do
not exist, and flow does not always pass escarpments and ridge-shaped topography at right angles.
However, even in these conditions, Eq.(A6.5) can be applied if the terrain extends a distance of several
– C6-36 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
times the height of the topographic feature in the traverse direction. In addition, as has been shown in
experimental and CFD studies, the speed-up ratio of two-dimensional topography is greater than that
of three-dimensional topography, and so application of Eq.(A6.5) to three-dimensional topography is
conservative26).
Complex terrain may increase the wind speed in valleys, which is not considered in this equation. In
such cases, it is recommended to investigate the topography factor by wind tunnel or CFD studies
when the construction site is very complex.
Figure A6.1.16 Interpolation procedure for calculating topography factor with inclination angle of
50 degrees and X s / H s = 1.6
Turbulence intensity IrZ Turbulence intensity IrZ Turbulence intensity IrZ Turbulence intensity IrZ Turbulence intensity IrZ
Terrain category I Terrain category II Terrain category III Terrain category IV Terrain category V
The turbulence intensity I Z at height Z above the ground, is defined in Eq.(A6.7), in which the
turbulence intensity I rZ on flat terrain expressed in Eq.(A6.8), and the topography factor EgI , shown
in Tables A6.6 and A6.7, is considered separately.
2) Topography factor for turbulence intensity
Not only the mean wind speed, but also the wind speed fluctuation is influenced by topography.
– C6-38 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
Especially in the separation region, there is an obvious increase in the standard variation of the wind
speed fluctuating component u (t ) (fluctuating wind speed hereafter) compared to that on flat terrain,
as Figs.A.6.1.19 and A6.1.20 show. Mean and fluctuating wind speed variation are closely related..
The location of the maximum fluctuating wind speed generally corresponds to the location where the
vertical gradient of mean wind speed is maximum. The region where the fluctuating wind speed is
greater than the flat terrain counterpart is generally inside the separation region when the mean wind
speed is smaller than that on flat terrain.
Figure A6.1.19 Topography factor for fluctuating wind speed on an escarpment with inclination
angle of 60 degrees. The symbols are for the experimental results, and the thick
solid lines are for Eq.(A6.10).
Figure A6.1.20 Topography factor for fluctuating wind speed on ridge-shaped topography with
inclination angle of 30 degrees. The symbols are for the experimental results, and
the thick solid lines are for Eq.(A6.10).
In the recommendations, the topography factor for turbulence intensity is defined as the ratio of the
topography factor for fluctuating wind speed to the topography factor for mean wind speed.
Topography factor for fluctuating wind speed is defined in Eq.(A6.10), in which the values of the
parameters besides C1 , C 2 and C3 are identical to those in Eq.(A6.5) for the topography factor for
mean wind speed. Equation (A6.10) is based on the results of wind tunnel experiments on escarpments
and ridge-shaped topography, as for Eq.(A6.5). The experiments were carried out with an approach
flow corresponding to terrain category II. The models corresponded to escarpments and ridge-shaped
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-39 –
Figure A6.1.21 Variation of maximum instantaneous speed over a ridge-shaped topography with an
inclination angle of 30 degrees. The symbols are for the experimental results, and
the solid lines are calculated from the topography factors for mean wind speed and
fluctuating wind speed
For a particular slope and a location of escarpment or ridge-shaped topography, not shown in Tables
A6.6 and A6.7, the topography factor of fluctuating wind speed can be obtained by linear interpolation,
In addition, when the slope of the topographic feature is less than 7.5 degrees, it is not necessary to
consider the topography factor of turbulence intensity because the fluctuating wind speed is almost
uninfluenced by the topography.
Figures A6.1.19 and A6.1.20 show the topography factor of fluctuating wind speed calculated from
Eq.(A6.10) as a solid line. It agrees well with the experimental data at any position and slope on the
escarpment. However, the topography factor for fluctuating wind speed does not match well with
– C6-40 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
Eq.(A6.10) for the ridge-shaped topography because of the complexity of the change of fluctuating
wind speed, but the coincidence is good where the topography factor of mean speed is larger than 1.
Although Eq.(A6.10) is obtained from experiments carried out on a two-dimensional escarpment and
ridge-shaped topography with the oncoming airflow passing at right angles, it can be applied to
topography that extends a long distance in the transverse direction several times the height of the
topography26). However, if the construction site is in a complex terrain, it is necessary to investigate
the topography factor for fluctuating wind speed by wind tunnel or CFD studies.
(2) Power spectral density
Power spectral density reflects the contribution to turbulence energy at each frequency. In the
recommendations, a von Karman type power spectrum, expressed by Eq.(A6.1.3), is employed to
express the power spectral density of fluctuating component of wind speed u (t ) .
4σ u2 ( L / U )
Fu ( f ) = (A6.1.3)
{1 + 70.8( fL / U ) 2 }5 / 6
where
f : frequency
σ u : standard deviation of fluctuating component of wind speed u (t )
U : mean wind speed
L : turbulence scale
(3) Turbulence scale
Equation (A6.11) is used as the turbulence scale LZ of the wind speed fluctuation u (t ) at height
Z.
Turbulence scale is an important parameter in the power spectrum, expressed in Eq.(A6.1.3). It is
the averaging length scale of the turbulence vortices. Figure A6.1.22 shows an example of a profile of
turbulence scale, which can be expressed in Eq.(A6.11) independently of terrain category.
eq.(A6.11)
(4) Co-coherence
Co-coherence of wind speed fluctuation Ru ( f , rz , ry ) is evaluated using Eq.(A6.1.4). It expresses
quantitatively the frequency-dependent spatial correlation of the wind speed fluctuation.
⎡ f k 2r 2 + k 2r 2 ⎤
Ru ( f , rz , ry ) = exp ⎢− ⎥
z z y y
(A6.1.4)
⎢ U ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
where
f : frequency
rz , ry : distance between 2 points in the vertical and horizontal directions
k z , k y : decaying factors reflecting the degree of spatial correlation of wind speed in the
vertical and horizontal directions
U : mean wind speed averaged at two points
It has been shown by observation that the decay factor is between 5-10.
effect of fluctuating internal pressures, except for open roofs, in which the value of Ĉ C is provided.
The values of Ĉpe (and Ĉ C in the open roof case) are determined from the most critical positive
*
and negative peak values irrespective of wind direction. Note that the factor C pi for the effect of
fluctuating internal pressures is not the actual peak internal pressure coefficient Ĉ pi but an equivalent
value producing the peak wind force coefficient Ĉ C when combined with the peak external pressure
coefficient Ĉpe .
The wind force coefficients and wind pressure coefficients given in this section are all for isolated
buildings and are obtained from the results of wind tunnel experiments. When nearby buildings are
expected to influence the wind forces and pressures, it is necessary to carry out wind tunnel
experiments or other special researches to determine the coefficients12).
Figure A6.2.1 External pressure on a building with a vaulted roof in a wind parallel to the gable
walls
gable wall (wind direction W2 ) it is represented by the rise/depth ratio f / D and the
eaves-height/depth ratio h / D . In both cases, the roof is divided into three zones. However, the zone
definitions vary because of the difference between the flow patterns of the two wind directions. For
wind direction W1 , the definition of zones is similar to that for flat, gable and mono-sloped roofs. For
wind direction W2 , however, the definition is similar to that for spherical domes.
The external pressure coefficient corresponds to the area-averaged value and the design wind load is
assumed constant over each zone. When h / B = 0 and f / B = 0 or when h / D = 0 and f / D = 0 ,
roof level coincides with ground level. The coefficients for these cases, which have no physical
meaning, are provided to make interpolation possible.
The external pressure coefficients on walls are determined in the same way as for buildings with flat,
gable and mono-sloped roofs.
3) Spherical domes
In the same manner as for buildings with vaulted roofs, the external pressure coefficients for
spherical domes are determined from the results of a wind tunnel experiment34). Since the counter lines
of mean pressure coefficients on a spherical dome are almost perpendicular to the wind direction, the
dome surface is divided into four zones (Ra to Rd), as shown in Table A6.10, and the external pressure
coefficient Cpe for each zone is given by spatially averaging the mean external pressure coefficient
over the zone. The building shape is represented by the rise/span ratio f / D and the
eaves-height/span ratio h / D . The values of Cpe for five f / D ratios and three h / D ratios are
provided in Table A6.10. Linear interpolation can be used for values of f / D and h / D other than
shown. Both positive and negative values of Cpe are provided for zone Ra. The value for h / D = 0
and f / D = 0 are again provided for interpolation.
The wind force coefficients for walls can be obtained from Table A6.12 by substituting h for H .
internal pressures, whereas one in a side or leeward wall may produce negative internal pressures.
Moreover, the internal pressure fluctuates and its characteristics depend on the relationship between
the size of the openings and the internal volume of the building. In this section, internal pressure
coefficients for buildings without dominant opening are provided based on the results of a series of
computations, in which it is assumed that the internal pressures are significantly influenced by factors
a) and b) mentioned above. That is, the values of Cpi in Table A6.11 are provided based on the
calculations35) of the mean internal pressures for various building configurations, assuming that the
gaps and openings are uniformly distributed over the external walls and the internal pressure is caused
by external pressures acting at the locations of the gaps and openings.
When the influence of other factors is assumed to be significant, it should be taken into account for
evaluating the internal pressure coefficient. For instance, when the internal volume is divided by
airtight partitions, the influence of factor d) is significant. When powerful air-conditioners are in
operation, the influence of factor e) is significant. In buildings with flexible roofs and/or walls, such as
membrane structures, the influence of factor f) is significant. When glass windows on the windward
face are broken by wind-borne debris in strong winds, the internal pressure is suddenly increased by
winds blowing into the building. This often results in failures of roof structures. In such cases, factor
h) should be considered appropriately.
Figure A6.2.2 Plots of drag coefficient C D on a two-dimensional cylinder with very smooth
surface as a function of Reynolds number Re 36)
(2) Wind force coefficients C R for free roofs with rectangular base
For free roofs where strong wind can flow under the roof, high fluctuating pressures act on both the
top and bottom surfaces. It is reasonable to evaluate the net wind force coefficients directly, not from
the wind pressure coefficients on the top and bottom surfaces, because the correlation between
fluctuating wind pressures on both surfaces is higher than that for enclosed buildings.
The wind force coefficients in Table A6.13 can be used for small-scale buildings, to which the
simplified method (A6.11) is applied, because the coefficients are determined from the results of wind
tunnel experiments on free roofs with H < 10 m. For gable ( θ > 0 ο) and troughed roofs ( θ < 0 ο),
previous studies have shown the most critical peak wind force coefficients on the windward and
leeward areas irrespective of wind direction38). Since the tested roof angle θ is limited to the range of
| θ |≤ 30 ο, the provision is also limited to that range.
The wind force coefficients are regulated for a clear flow case where there are no obstructions under
the roof. The flow pattern around a roof is significantly affected by obstructions under it. If there is
any obstruction whose blockage ratio is larger than approximately 50%, the wind pressure on the
bottom surface may increase significantly, resulting in a significant increase in the net wind force on
the roof. In such a case, it is necessary to evaluate the wind force coefficients from wind tunnel
experiments and so on.
(3) Wind force coefficients C D for lattice structures
The size of individual lattice structure members is generally much smaller than the width of the
structure, and they are arranged symmetrically. Therefore, it is assumed that the only wind force acting
on a plane of the structure is drag. Total drag can be estimated as the summation of the drags on each
member of the structure. Since the flow around a member depends only on the characteristics of the
local flow around it, drag is proportional to the velocity pressure at the height of the member. Based on
these features, the following two methods are often used for estimating the wind force on lattice
– C6-48 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
structures. One is to multiply the wind force coefficient, given as a function of the solidity ϕ of the
plane, by the projected area of the plane. The other method39) is to sum the wind forces on all members,
which is given by the product of the wind force coefficient C D of each member and its projected
area. For any method, the solidity ϕ should be small. In the Recommendations, the former method is
used and the wind force coefficient C D is provided only for ϕ ≤ 0.6 .
The wind force coefficient is represented as a function of the solidity ϕ , the plan of the structure
and the cross section of the member. The solidity ϕ is defined as the ratio of the projected area AF
of the plane to the whole plane area A0 = ( Bh ) of the structure. The value of ϕ is calculated for
each panel of the lattice structure when the wind direction is normal to the plane. In the calculation,
the areas of the leeward lattice members and the appurtenances are not included. The wind forces on
the appurtenances can be estimated from the provision of C D for members (Table A6.16) or from
wind tunnel experiments and they are added to the wind force on the structure.
Table A6.14 provides the wind force coefficients C D for lattice structures with square and
triangular plan shapes, which consist of angles or circular pipes. The wind force coefficient C D for
the triangular shape in plan is the same for the two wind directions shown in the table. When the
members are circular pipes, the wind force coefficients C D for the members are affected by the
Reynolds number. The provisions are based on the value in the subcritical Reynolds number regime. In
strong winds, the value of C D may become smaller than that given in the provisions due to the effect
of the Reynolds number. However, this effect is not considered here.
When the plan of the structure and/or the cross section of the member are different from those in
Table A6.14, the wind loads on the structure can be estimated by using the wind force coefficients of
the members given in Table A6.16 together with the local velocity pressure. However, the solidity ϕ
of the structure is required to be less than 0.6.
(4) Wind force coefficients C D for fences on ground
Wind force coefficients C D for fences on the ground are defined as a function of the solidity ϕ
in the same manner as those for lattice structures. The value of C D for ϕ = 0 in Table A6.15 is
introduced to obtain intermediate values of C D for 0 < ϕ < 0.2 . Wind load for a fence can be
calculated according to the simplified procedure using C D and the projected area A, which is defined
as the whole area multiplied by ϕ .
(5) Wind force coefficients C for components
Wind force coefficients C for components are determined from the results of wind tunnel
experiments40) with two-dimensional models in a smooth flow. The values of C can be applied to
line-like members less than approximately 50cm wide, but should not be applied to ordinary buildings.
In some cases, the value of C in the across-wind direction becomes relatively large when the wind
direction deviates only a little from the normal direction. In such cases, two values of C ( ± 0.6) are
provided in Table A6.16.
Wind force coefficients for components may also be used for calculating the wind loads on lattice
structures, together with the local velocity pressure q Z at height Z of the member under
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-49 –
(2) Peak external pressure coefficient Ĉ pe for buildings with rectangular sections and heights less
than or equal to 45 m
1) Buildings with flat, gable and mono-sloped roofs
For estimating peak pressure coefficients for components/cladding of low-rise buildings, the subject
area is assumed to be 1 m2 as a typical value. Positive peak external pressure coefficients are given as
a function of the turbulence intensity, because the pressures depend significantly on the turbulence of
the approach flow. The positive peak external pressure coefficient on a roof is evaluated by using the
positive external pressure coefficient Cpe for zone Ru in Table A 6.9(1). If no positive value of
Cpe is provided for small roof angles, it is not necessary to evaluate the positive wind pressures.
Negative peak external pressure coefficients in the edge and corner regions are significantly influenced
by vortices related to flow separation at the edge. Negative peak pressure coefficients tend to increase
in magnitude as the turbulence intensity of the approach flow increases. However, the influence of
turbulence on negative peak pressure coefficients is smaller than that on positive peak pressure
coefficients on windward walls. Consequently, the provision of negative peak pressure coefficients is
determined from the values for terrain category IV and are independent of turbulence intensity. High
suctions are induced in the edge and corner regions of walls and roofs, whose widths are affected by
building dimensions such as height and width.
For gable roofs, very high suctions are induced near corners (zone Rb) when the roof angle θ is
less than or equal to 10ο and in the ridge corner (zones Rd and Rg) when θ ≈ 20 ο. For mono-sloped
roofs, very high suctions are induced near the higher eaves corners (zone Rd); the suctions are larger
and the high suction area is wider than that for gable roofs. Consequently, the peak external pressure
coefficient for zone Rd is larger than that for gable roofs. In such high suction zones, the wind load can
be reduced by using the area reduction factor k C when the subject area AC of components/cladding
is greater than 1 m2 (up to 5 m2) 46).
2) Buildings with vaulted roofs
The peak external pressure coefficients Ĉ pe are determined from the results of wind-tunnel
experiments33), focusing on medium-scale buildings in urban areas, in which the h / B1 ratio is varied
from 0 to 0.7 and the f / B1 ratio from 0.1 to 0.4. When the f / B1 ratio is small, the corner and edge
regions of a roof are significantly affected by vortex generation as in the flat roof case. This results in
larger peak suctions in zones Ra and Rd. When the f / B1 ratio is relatively large, large peak suctions
are induced in zone Rd for winds nearly perpendicular to the gable edge and in zone Rc for winds
nearly perpendicular to the eaves.
Taking these wind pressure features into account, the roof is divided into several zones and positive
and negative peak external pressure coefficients are provided for these zones, as shown in Table
A6.18(2). When the f / B1 ratio is lower than 0.1, the roof is subjected to higher suctions similar to
gable and mono-sloped roofs. Therefore, it is not necessary to evaluate the positive peak external
pressure coefficients. The values for walls can be determined from Table A6.18(1).
(3) Peak external pressure coefficients Ĉ pe for buildings with circular sections
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-51 –
For buildings with circular sections, the maximum positive peak external pressure coefficient occurs
at the stagnation point on the windward face, whereas the maximum negative peak external pressure
coefficient occurs near the point of maximum negative mean external pressure. The vertical
distribution of positive peak pressure coefficients depends strongly on the mean velocity profile of the
approach flow in the same manner as that for buildings with rectangular sections. On the other hand,
negative peak external pressure coefficients are influenced by the aspect ratios H / D and surface
roughness of buildings. The factor k1 considers the effect of aspect ratio, and the factor k 2 the
effect of surface roughness in the transcritical Reynolds number regime. Negative peak external
pressure coefficients become larger in magnitude near the top of the building because of the flow
separation from the top (i.e. end effect). The factor k 3 considers this effect47). The values in Table
A6.19 are applicable to buildings with aspect ratios H / D less than or equal to 8, because the
provision is based on wind tunnel experiments using such models.
Only negative peak pressures are considered for roofs. The values of Ĉ pe for domes with
f / D = 0 provided in Table A6.20 can be used.
(4) Peak external pressure coefficients Ĉ pe for buildings with circular sections and spherical domes
Peak external pressure coefficients in Table A6.20 are determined from the results of wind tunnel
experiments34). External pressures on domes fluctuate significantly due to the effects of turbulence of
approach flow as well as of vortex generation. Therefore, both positive and negative peak pressure
coefficients are provided. Because the geometry of spherical domes is axisymmetric, they are divided
into three zones (Ra, Rb and Rc) by coaxial circles. When the rise/span ratio ( f / D ) is small, negative
peak external pressures become large in magnitude near the windward edge (zone Ra) due to the flow
separation at the windward edge. On the other hand, when the f / D ratio is large, large positive peak
external pressures are induced near the windward edge due to the direct influence of the approach flow.
Therefore, positive peak external pressure coefficients for zone Ra are provided as a function of the
turbulence intensity I uH at the reference height H of the approach flow when f / D ≥ 0.2 .
external pressure coefficient Ĉpe . The value of Ĉ C is evaluated from a series of computations for
the peak wind force coefficients using wind tunnel data on Ĉpe for various building configurations.
The following assumptions are made in the computations48):
1) Gaps and openings in the external walls are uniformly distributed, and the internal pressures are
generated from the external pressures at the locations of the gaps and openings.
2) The fluctuating internal and external pressures are independent of each other.
When the building has intentionally designed openings or when glass windows on the windward
face are broken by flying debris, the size of the openings may be very large compared with ordinary
gaps and openings. The values in Table A6.21 cannot be used for such cases. It is necessary to estimate
the peak wind force coefficients appropriately by using the data on the external and internal pressures
obtained from wind tunnel experiments49). Some international codes and standards20), 50)
provide
internal pressure coefficients for buildings with dominant openings.
Cpi
difference of the wind pressure coefficient of the windward side and the wind pressure coefficient
(constant) of a lee side as described by the following equation.
2α
⎛Z⎞
CD = CPA ⎜ ⎟ − CPB (A6.3.8)
⎝H⎠
'
C MD , C MD and S CMD ( f D* ) are expressed using the parameter of the recommendation equations as
follows.
C MD = C H Cg (A6.3.9)
'
C MD = C H Cg' (A6.3.10)
f D* S CMD ( f D* ) = C ' 2MD FD (A6.3.11)
where C H is wind force coefficient at the top of the building, Cg is a factor relevant to overturning
moment in the along-wind direction, Cg' is a factor relevant to rms overturning moment in the
along-wind direction and FD is a spectrum factor of windward force. Spectrum factor of wind
velocity F , size reduction factor S D , factor R expressing correlation of wind pressure of a
windward side and a leeward side R are considered for FD .
Characteristics of overturning moment expressed by Eqs.(A6.3.9)−(A6.3.11) are shown in
Fig.A6.3.1 in comparison with those obtained from wind tunnel tests. The recommendation values of
overturning moment and rms overturning moment are slightly greater than the test values, and the
spectrum is mostly in agreement with the test values.
1.5 1.5 10 -2
recommendation value/test value
1.0 1.0 10 -3
fSCMD(f)
terrain category
地表面粗度区分 terrain category
地表面粗度区分
0.5 II 0.5 10 -4 test
実験値
II
III III recommendation
指針値
IV IV
0.0 0.0 10 -5 -3
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 10 10 -2 10 -1 10 0
side ratio D/B side ratio D/B fB/UH
(a) mean overturning moment (b) rms overturning moment (c) power spectrum density of
coefficient coefficient over turning moment
Figure A6.3.1 Along-wind force in comparison with those obtained from wind tunnel tests
( H / BD = 4 )52)
2
S 'MD ( f ) = χ m ( f ) S MD ( f ) (A6.3.12)
2
where χ m ( f ) is mechanical admittance as expressed by the following equation.
2 1
χm ( f ) = (A6.3.13)
{ 2
}
1 − ( f / f D ) 2 + 4ζ D2 ( f / f D ) 2
2
The variance of overturning moment due to the load effect by vibration σ MD is the integral of
2
Eq.(A6.3.12), and the variance consists of back ground component σ MDQ and resonance component
2
σ MDR as expressed by the following equation.
∞
2
σ MD = ∫ S ' MD ( f )df ≈ σ MDQ
2 2
+ σ MDR
0
∞ ∞ πf D S MD ( f D )
∫0 S MD ( f )df + S MD ( f D )∫0
2 2
= χ m ( f ) df = σ MDQ + (A6.3.14)
4ζ D
In this equation, resonance component is estimated approximately as a response to white noise
S MD ( f D ) .
Therefore, overturning moment for maximum load effect is expressed by following equation.
2 2
M Dmax = M D + g D σ MDQ + σ MDR (A6.3.15)
where g D is called peak factor, and is the ratio of maximum fluctuating component to standard
deviation. This is expressed by the following equation, based on the theory of stationary stochastic
process.
0.577
g D = 2 ln(ν DT ) + ≈ 2 ln(ν DT ) + 1.2 (A6.3.16)
2 ln(ν DT )
where T is time for evaluation and ν D is level crossing rate calculated from power spectrum density
as in the following equation.
∞
νD =
∫0 f 2 S ' MD ( f )df
≈ fD
RD
(A6.3.17)
∞ 1 + RD
∫0 S 'MD ( f )df
Additionally, in some foreign wind loading standards, M Dmax is expressed by the following formula.
In this equation, the background component and the resonance component are distinguished.
M Dmax = M D + g Q2 σ MDQ
2
+ g R2 σ MDR
2
(A6.3.18)
where g Q is peak factor of background component (=3.4) and g R is peak factor of resonance
component calculated from Eq.(A6.3.16) as ν D = f D .
(4) Vertical distribution of equivalent static wind load
In the gust effect factor method, the vertical distribution of wind load is given by mean wind load
multiplied by gust effect factor. This wind load is an approximate value based on the assumption that
vibration mode is close to mean wind load distribution and the building has uniform density. Actually,
the mean, background and resonance components of wind load distribution are different. The mean
component is expressed by Eq.(A6.3.8), and the resonance component is expressed by Eq.(A6.3.3).
Therefore, if the vertical distribution of building mass is remarkably uneven, the resonance component
should be estimated carefully. In that case, the distribution of resonance component for the
– C6-56 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
WD , WDQ , WDR (N): mean, background and resonance component of wind load, respectively
a Dmax (m/s2): maximum acceleration at top of building as defined in A6.10.2
g DQ : peak factor of background component
In this recommendation, it is assumed that the background component has a similar distribution to
mean component. The following methods may also be used.
1) Shear force or overturning moment at a certain building height may be obtained from the integral of
pressure on area over the height20).
2) Load distribution can be defined by LRC formula53).
(5) Example of calculation of gust effect factor
Figure A6.3.2 shows the variation of gust effect factor by terrain category and building height for
H / B = 4 , D / B = 1 and U 0 = 35 m/s. The gust effect factors become large with terrain category
and building height.
3.8
3.6 category
gust effect factor G D
3.4 V
IV
3.2 III
3.0 II
I
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
height of building (m)
Figure A6.3.2 Variation of gust effect factor with terrain category and building height
A6.3.2 Gust effect factor for roof wind loads on structural frames
Gust effect factor for roof wind loads on structural frames is influenced by external pressure and
internal pressure. It can be assumed that there is no correlation between fluctuation of external
pressure and fluctuation of internal pressure for a building without dominant openings. Furthermore,
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-57 –
Helmholtz resonance, the phenomenon of varying internal pressure at a specific frequency by external
pressure, can be disregarded. Fluctuating internal pressure coefficient is derived from the theory for
buildings with uniform openings54). Therefore, external pressure fluctuation, which is slower than
response time of internal pressure, is transmitted as internal pressure, and it is assumed that quicker
pressure fluctuation is not transmitted as internal pressure. Furthermore, fluctuating internal pressures
act on all parts of a roof simultaneously for more safety. Generally, response time of internal pressure
is long enough, compared with the natural period for the first mode of the roof structure. Therefore,
resonance of the roof structure for internal pressure can be disregarded. Under these conditions, gust
effect factor for roof wind loads is given by the following equation.
2 2 2 2 2
g Re rRe (1 + RRe ) + g Ri rRi rc
GR = 1 ± (A6.3.21)
1 − rc
where g Re and g Ri are peak factors for generalized external pressure and generalized internal
pressure, and these value are g Re = 3.5 , g Ri = 3 from the results of test and measurement. rRe and
rRi are the generalized fluctuating external and internal pressures divided by the generalized mean
wind pressure coefficient. rc is the generalized mean internal pressure divided by the generalized
mean external pressure coefficient. RRe is resonance factor, which is calculated from the
non-dimensional power spectrum density at the frequency of the first mode of the roof and the critical
damping ratio.
wind load
0
ïó
â³
èd (-)
(+)
time
時間
Figure A6.3.3 Fluctuation of roof wind loads when wind force coefficient is small
An equation of gust effect factor is expressed for two cases of internal pressure coefficient,
C pi = −0.4 and C pi = 0 , given by Table A6.11. If wind force coefficient is small, roof wind loads act
in the upward direction and in the downward direction as shown in Fig.A6.3.3. When combinations
with other loads are considered, downward wind load can be dominant even if the absolute value is
small. Therefore, downward wind load can be calculated. In Eq.(A6.17), G R for “+”corresponds to
load in the same direction as given by wind load coefficient, and G R for “−“ is opposite. The above is
the same for Eq.(A6.18) and Eq.(A6.19). However, wind force coefficients are given as positive or
negative in A6.2.2, and gust effect factor should be calculated from Eq.(A6.17) with “+”. Furthermore,
the equation, f R ≈ 0.57 δ ( δ is deformation at center due to weight), can approximately evaluate
the natural frequency for the first mode of the roof beam, and the document55) is useful for estimating
– C6-58 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
(a) beams normal to the wind direction (b) beams parallel to the wind direction
Figure A6.3.4 Relation between wind force coefficient and external or internal pressure coefficient
(for C pi = −0.4 )
(2) For C pi = 0
Wind force coefficient is equal to external pressure coefficient for C pi = 0 . In this case, gust effect
factor can be calculated from Eq.(A6.19). The equation considers the mean and fluctuating
components of external pressure, and the fluctuating component of internal pressure.
U H /( f L BD ) > 10 , aeroelastic instability may well occur and wind load will need to be calculated
from the wind force and the response in wind tunnel tests.
Along-wind vibration is caused by turbulence in natural wind, but across-wind vibration is caused
by wind turbulence as well as by the vortex in the wake of the building. Although there are many study
examples with regard to the behavior of a vortex in the wake of a building, unclear points remain.
Furthermore, since the behavior is greatly affected by building shape, it is difficult on the whole to
theoretically estimate across-wind vibrations in the same manner as for along-wind vibrations. With
consideration of the first mode, an estimation equation for across-wind load has been derived from
data of across-wind fluctuating overturning moment obtained from wind tunnel tests. Subjects for this
estimation equation are structures with rectangular planes (side ratio D / B = 0.2 ~ 5 ) from which
many experimental data have been obtained. Moreover, by taking into account the fact that
experimental data for buildings with an aspect ratio H / BD exceeding 6 are insufficient, and that
aeroelastic instability easily occurs in these buildings, the scope of application is limited to aspect
ratios of 6 or less.
Furthermore, data of across-wind fluctuating overturning moment for buildings with plane shapes
other than rectangular planes can be obtained from wind tunnel tests. Where it is unnecessary to
consider aeroelastic instability, across-wind wind loads can be calculated using the method indicated
in the recommendations.
A6.4.2 Procedure
(1) Concept of wind load estimation
Since a fundamental mode usually predominates in across-wind vibration, across-wind loads are
calculated using the spectral modal method considering only to the first translational mode, in the
same manner as for along-wind loads. For the non-resonance component, the profile of fluctuating
across-wind force is set to be vertically uniform and the magnitude of the fluctuating wind force is
decided to agree with the fluctuating overturning moment. The resonance component estimates the
inertia force due to vibration and the vertical profile is determined using φ L in Eq.(A6.33) so as to be
proportioned to the first translational mode.
It is recommended that the critical damping ratio be estimated with reference to “Damping in
buildings” 7).
(2) Modeling of overturning moment
The overturning moment varies with building shape and wind characteristics, but in the subjective
scope the breadth-depth ratio has the greatest effect on the overturning moment: the effects of other
parameters are slight. Therefore, in the recommendations, the fluctuating overturning moment is set as
a function of only the breadth-depth ratio of a building based on wind tunnel test data 52, 56).
(3) Buildings with circular planes
Across-wind responses of buildings with plane shapes other than rectangular planes can be
estimated with the same concept. This section details buildings with circular planes. The parameter
– C6-60 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
It is recommended that the critical damping ratio be estimated with reference to “Damping in
buildings” 7).
(2) Modeling of torsional moment
The torsional moment varies according to building shape and wind characteristics, but in respect of
buildings in the subjective scope the breadth-depth ratio exerts the greatest effect on the torsional
moment and the effects of other parameters are slight. Therefore, in the recommendations, the
fluctuating torsional moment is set as a function of only the breadth-depth ratio of a building based on
wind tunnel test data 52, 56).
2I H μ
BD (1 + RD )
q H C D HB0
x max,Z = g D (A6.6.2)
K 0.95 + α + β
However, the mean response X Z at height Z is given by:
qH CD H ⎛ B0 B − BH ⎞
XZ = ⎜⎜ − 0 ⎟⎟ μ (A6.6.3)
K ⎝ 1 + 2α + β 2 + 2α + β ⎠
where qH , I H are the velocity pressure and the turbulence intensity, respectively, at H height, and
α is the exponent of the power law in the wind speed profile. g D , RD and BD are the peak
factor, the resonance factor and the back ground excitation factor, respectively.
Gust effect factor is given by Eq.(A.6.23).
A6.7.2 Vortex induced vibration and resulting wind load on buildings with circular sections
Shear layers separated from windward corners of both sides of buildings roll up alternately to shed
into wake and form Karman vortex streets behind the buildings. According to the alternate shedding,
the periodic fluctuating wind loads act on the buildings in the across-wind direction. When the natural
frequency of the building coincides with the vortex shedding frequency, the vibration of the building
can be resonant with the periodic fluctuating wind loads, causing the building to vibrate at large
amplitude in the across-wind direction. This is vortex-induced vibration, which is a problem for many
structures, particularly chimneys.
The critical wind speed of the resonance is larger than the design wind speed for most buildings, so
these phenomena are not normally important. However, as the critical wind speed is smaller than
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-63 –
design wind speed for very slender buildings with small natural frequency and damping like steel
chimneys, tall buildings and building components, the effect of vortex induced vibration should be
checked carefully in the wind resistance design stage.
A lot of research has been done on vortex-induced vibration and a number of methods have been
developed in the past decade for estimating vibration amplitude and its equivalent static wind loads,
particularly for structures with circular sections. The equivalent wind loads described in the
recommendation are based on the spectral modal method in which the Strouhal number of vortex
shedding is 0.2, and the power spectrum of the fluctuating wind loads depends on the vibration
amplitude6) and the Reynolds number.
The effects of structural density, damping and Reynolds number are included in the resonant wind
force coefficient C r , which is shown in Table A6.2.3 for three categories of Reynolds number region
and for two types of structures with various density and damping. The rows in the table show the
effect of Reynolds number, that is, U r Dm < 3 is the subcritical region, 3 ≤ U r Dm < 6 is critical
region and 6 ≤ U r Dm is super/trance critical Reynolds number region. ρ s ζ L in Table A6.23
depends on the amplitude at the resonant condition. ρ s ζ L < 5 corresponds with the large
amplitude, and ρ s ζ L ≥ 5 corresponds with the small amplitude.
A6.7.3 Vortex induced vibration and resulting wind load on building components with circular
sections
Occurrence of vortex induced vibration of building components with circular section can be
checked by Eq.(A6.26). Most design wind speeds for components like members of truss towers are
larger than the critical wind speed, so the effect of vortex induced vibration should be checked
carefully. In particular, the vibration amplitude can be very large for components like steel pipes
whose mass and damping are small. The equivalent wind loads described in Eq.(A6.27) are introduced
in the sub-critical Reynolds number region based on wind tunnel tests59). The equation is applicable for
various boundary conditions at the ends of components.
A6.8.2 Combination of horizontal wind loads for buildings not satisfying the conditions of Eq.(6.1)
Buildings not satisfying the conditions of Eq.(6.1) have a small resonance component. For such
cases, it is considered that wind load of γ times of the windward loads act in the across-wind
direction, as shown in figure 6.8.1. γ tends to increase with building height according to the stress
analysis for buildings with rectangular columns using wind load from wind tunnel tests. Therefore, an
approximate equation of γ 60)
for an 80m-high building is defined as per the recommendation.
wind quasi-static
wind load
plan of building
Figure A6.8.1 Windward load and combined Figure A6.8.2 Relation between side ratio
load for across wind direction (D/B) and combination factor γ
A6.8.3 Combination of horizontal wind loads for buildings satisfying the conditions of Eq.(6.1)
Buildings satisfying the conditions of Eq.(6.1) have a large resonance component. For such cases, it
is assumed that response probability is expressed by a normal distribution. If the overturning moments
in two directions, M x , M y , are expressed by a 2-dimensional normal distribution, the equivalence
line of probability becomes an eliptical line using correlation coefficient of response, ρ , as shown in
Figure A6.8.3. Every point on the eliptical line (solid line) can be considered as a load combination,
but it is not practical to consider a lot of them. Therefore, load combinations can be defined as the
apexes of an octagon enveloping the oval. In other words, y-direction overturning moment M yc ,
which should be combined with maximum x-direction overturning moment M xmax , is defined by the
following equation using mean y-direction overturning moment M y and maximum fluctuating
component of y-direction overturning moment mymax .
M yc = M y + m ymax ( 2 + 2ρ −1 ) (A6.8.1)
Table A6.24 shows the combination of loads according to the upper equation considering following
characteristics of along-wind, across-wind and torsional wind loads.
・Co-coherence (correlation coefficient for each frequency) is negligible between along-wind force
and across-wind force, and between along-wind force and torsional wind force. Therefore, ρ = 0
as co-coherence of response is negligible.
・Because the co-coherence between across-wind force and torsional wind force is not zero, the
absolute value of the correlation coefficient of response ρ LT , shown in Table A6.25, is defined
by calculation based on wind tunnel tests.
ρ LT is calculated by a statistical analysis method61) under the conditions that the critical damping
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-65 –
ratios for across-wind vibration and torsional vibration are 0.02, and the building has no coupling
vibration mode. Therefore, if the critical damping ratio differs greatly from 0.02 or the building’s
vibration mode is significantly coupled, it is necessary to carry out special research.
My
mx max
point A
M y max
my max M yc
considered point of M y0 m y max ( 2 + 2 ρ − 1)
combination load my max ρ
My
my max (1 − 2 − 2 ρ )
Mx
Mx M x max
Figure A6.8.3 Schema of load combination in consideration of response correlation
A6.9.2 Procedure
The mode shape correction factor is specified by Eq.(A6.32). This corrects the gust effect factor for
– C6-66 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
β −1
⎛Z⎞
φ T = (0.27 β + 0.73)⎜
⎟ (A6.9.4)
⎝H⎠
In addition, the generalized mass M D , M L and the generalized inertial moment I T of a
building can be calculated according to Eqs.(A6.9.5) and (A6.9.5), respectively.
2β
H ⎛Z⎞
M D (L ) = ∫0 mZ ⎜ ⎟
⎝H⎠
dZ (A6.9.5)
2β
H⎛Z⎞
IT =
0∫I Z ⎜ ⎟ dZ
⎝H⎠
(A6.9.6)
where m Z and I Z are the mass and the inertial moment at height Z , respectively.
RD
σ aD = qH BHCH C 'g λ (A6.10.4)
MD
Furthermore, σ aD is multiplied by the peak factor in the recommended equation for the
acceleration at the top of the building. Because the resonant component is dominant in acceleration,
level crossing rate ν D for calculating peak factor is approximated by the natural frequency f D .
A.6.11.2 Procedure
The simplified procedures are derived from the results of calculation for buildings with reference
heights of 5 - 15m and projected breadths of 5 - 30m, assuming that the wind directionality factor K D
is 1.0 and the terrain category is III. Therefore, this procedure can be applied to terrain categories IV
and V with some overestimates in wind loads. For terrain categories less than III, the exposure factor
C e is introduced. When wind speed is expected to increase due to local topography, the wind loads
shall be increased appropriately, for example, by multiplying by the square of the topography factor
Eg .
When groups of two or more tall buildings are constructed in proximity, the fluid flow through the
group may be significantly deformed and have a much more complex nature than is usually
acknowledged, resulting in enhanced dynamic pressures and motions especially on neighboring
downstream structures. Therefore, study of mutual interference among closely-located tall buildings is
an important problems not only in wind resistant structure design but even in minimizing wind-motion
discomfort to building occupants. Wake-induced oscillation in the downstream structure is considered
to be affected by interference from upstream buildings of various sizes placed in various locations and
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-69 –
y y
6 BD 6 BD
1.1 1.2
4 4
1.1 1.1 1.2
1.3
1.2 1.3
2 2
1.1 1.0
x 1.0 1.0 x 1.2 1.1
12 BD 6 4 2 12 BD 6 4 2 1.3
0.8
(a) Terrain category II, along-wind direction (b) Terrain category II, across-wind direction
1.2
y
6 BD
1.2 1.1
1.2 4
1.2 1.4
1.2
1.1
1.2 2
1.0
1.0
1.0
x 1.1 1.0 1.1
12 BD 6 4 2 0.8
1-year-recurrence wind speed U 1H is used to calculate the acceleration of wind response for the
evaluation of the habitability, defined in Eq.(A6.41).
Figure A6.5 is smoothing of the wind speed map based on the 1-year-recurrence wind speed at the
metrological offices, from which the wind speed U 1 at any locations can be estimated. The
1-year-recurrence wind speeds at the metrological offices are established based on the daily-maximum
wind speed data regardless of wind directions collected from 1991 to 2000. On the other hand, because
the wind response characteristic is not the same for the wind direction, the wind speed, which becomes
the same acceleration is also different for the wind direction. Therefore, if the wind direction
characteristic, that is, the frequency of exceedance of each wind speed can be understood, a reasonable
design becomes possible. This wind direction characteristic in the range of the wind speed to evaluate
the habitability is generally clarified.
When the maximum acceleration a max is approximated as a function of wind speed U shown in
Eq.(A6.13.1), the return period t a max for maximum acceleration a max is calculated by
Eq.(A6.13.2). The probability at the right side of Eq.(A6.13.2) is expressed as the total sum of the
occurrence probability of the wind speed in every 16 azimuths shown in Eq.(A6.13.3).
a max = f (U ) (A6.13.1)
1
t a max = (A6.13.2)
1 − Fa (≤ amax )
Fa (≤ amax ) = ∑ pi FU {≤ }
16
f i −1 (amax ) (A6.13.3)
i =1
where
Fa (≤ a max ) : probability that maximum acceleration does not exceed a max
pi : occurrence frequency for wind direction i
{ }
FU ≤ f i −1 (a max ) : probability that the wind speed does not exceed the wind speed that the
maximum acceleration is equal to a max for wind direction i
The occurrence frequency at each wind direction pi , parameters ai and bi in Eq.(A6.13.4),
which are the parameters to calculate the right side of Eq.(A6.13.3), are shown in Table A6.13.1.
These parameters are estimated based on the daily maximum wind speed at 30 cities, with the least
square method applied for the data at Naha where typhoon is dominant, and the Gumbel’s moment
method for other cities. These parameters ai and bi should be used for the return period less than 1
year.
FU (≤ U i ) = exp[− exp{− ai (U i − bi )}] (A6.13.4)
where
U i (m/s): 10-minute mean wind speed at 10m above ground over a flat and open terrain for
wind direction i
ai , bi : parameters estimated based on the daily maximum speed for wind direction i
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-71 –
In addition, the wind direction factor in A6.1.4 should be used for 100-year-recurrence wind
speed, and it is not possible to use it here.
Table A6.13.1 parameters ai , bi and occurrence frequency p i for each wind direction at 30 cities
Asahikawa Sapporo Aomori Akita Sendai
ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%)
NNE 0.58 4.26 3.3 1.58 3.59 0.4 1.22 3.57 4.6 0.73 4.79 0.4 0.82 4.40 1.7
NE 0.52 4.32 0.8 1.23 3.76 0.5 0.82 4.03 4.0 0.56 5.88 0.1 0.61 3.72 1.1
ENE 0.54 3.63 0.2 1.30 3.80 1.6 0.76 5.84 3.7 0.73 3.17 0.2 0.56 5.86 0.8
E 1.45 2.28 0.7 0.94 4.93 4.0 0.90 5.46 7.9 0.63 4.77 0.3 0.66 5.09 0.7
ESE 1.05 2.74 0.7 0.72 5.52 6.2 0.60 6.09 1.1 0.65 6.57 7.2 0.74 4.97 0.8
SE 0.76 4.44 6.4 0.59 7.49 8.1 0.64 7.71 0.7 0.63 6.25 17.0 1.14 3.89 16.7
SSE 0.55 5.61 17.1 0.47 8.86 13.5 0.58 4.61 0.5 1.25 4.70 0.2 0.76 4.58 13.3
S 0.54 4.34 3.9 0.43 7.94 3.2 1.58 2.79 0.2 0.72 6.27 0.1 0.75 4.66 6.4
SSW 0.48 6.37 3.3 0.45 7.31 1.8 0.54 5.27 2.8 0.38 8.91 2.2 0.87 5.06 1.8
SW 0.59 6.72 1.2 0.44 7.96 2.1 0.47 6.47 12.6 0.46 7.44 9.9 0.77 5.55 0.9
WSW 0.49 7.58 10.1 0.47 8.41 3.9 0.48 7.56 10.2 0.38 6.98 12.5 0.46 8.02 1.6
W 0.63 6.45 17.6 0.53 8.53 5.1 0.50 9.11 14.0 0.36 7.91 17.7 0.42 8.75 7.7
WNW 0.65 5.80 19.4 0.45 9.28 5.2 0.55 8.43 15.7 0.37 9.68 11.9 0.39 9.42 16.9
NW 0.68 4.78 8.8 0.46 8.63 19.5 0.66 6.00 8.6 0.45 9.56 9.2 0.43 8.62 10.1
NNW 0.86 5.66 4.7 0.59 7.05 23.3 1.00 4.20 6.7 0.60 7.87 3.8 0.56 5.44 7.9
N 0.83 4.92 1.8 0.83 4.78 1.6 0.84 3.49 6.7 0.75 5.86 7.3 0.75 5.17 11.6
Niigata Kanazawa Utsunomiya Maebashi Tokyo
ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%)
NNE 1.07 4.61 14.4 0.76 5.11 5.8 0.70 4.47 18.5 0.28 9.56 0.1 0.87 5.46 4.2
NE 1.78 3.66 6.6 0.81 5.38 3.0 0.88 4.43 8.8 - - 0.0 1.04 5.43 6.2
ENE 0.85 3.72 0.3 0.99 5.02 10.5 1.01 4.52 2.3 1.20 4.78 0.1 1.05 5.58 6.6
E 1.24 4.17 0.2 0.93 4.62 9.9 1.13 3.81 3.5 0.71 4.32 1.4 1.10 5.47 3.3
ESE 0.64 7.39 0.2 0.87 3.56 0.9 1.37 3.85 7.1 0.81 5.19 22.7 1.22 5.67 3.6
SE 0.69 8.05 6.6 1.35 3.32 1.2 1.33 3.76 9.2 0.99 4.83 8.7 1.37 6.02 1.9
SSE 0.98 5.69 4.4 2.15 3.26 1.6 1.00 4.26 9.1 1.21 3.84 2.0 0.94 4.99 0.3
S 1.65 4.38 1.7 0.17 4.11 0.5 0.78 4.68 6.0 1.17 3.76 1.2 0.83 6.53 20.2
SSW 1.19 4.78 3.0 0.42 7.62 8.2 0.75 4.48 6.4 0.57 2.88 0.3 0.56 7.61 2.0
SW 0.45 6.84 3.2 0.43 9.16 8.5 0.81 4.12 2.8 0.49 3.30 0.3 0.53 7.80 9.8
WSW 0.40 8.65 14.4 0.45 8.65 9.7 0.68 4.79 1.5 0.50 4.65 1.3 0.64 5.84 0.4
W 0.44 7.29 18.8 0.36 7.49 12.1 0.59 6.99 2.2 0.44 6.78 1.5 0.45 7.83 0.2
WNW 0.38 8.39 7.7 0.37 6.62 9.1 0.53 7.17 3.1 0.34 6.86 3.5 0.50 7.23 0.2
NW 0.48 8.40 6.9 0.44 5.36 7.4 0.47 5.14 1.6 0.45 6.82 26.0 0.45 8.28 4.9
NNW 0.52 7.43 6.7 0.38 5.82 3.7 0.50 5.67 3.6 0.47 8.43 26.7 0.47 7.37 25.8
N 0.66 5.56 4.9 0.66 4.89 7.9 0.58 4.49 14.3 0.51 11.0 4.2 0.64 5.85 10.4
Chiba Yokohama Shizuoka Hamamatsu Nagoya
ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%) ai bi pi(%)
NNE 0.73 6.38 6.2 0.58 7.52 1.8 0.83 4.75 2.9 0.80 4.59 0.4 1.10 3.61 1.6
NE 0.89 6.10 6.1 0.81 6.50 0.1 0.77 5.74 9.5 1.25 3.20 3.0 1.80 2.92 0.7
ENE 0.97 5.46 6.7 0.64 7.58 1.4 0.94 5.74 23.7 0.56 6.29 7.1 2.25 2.29 0.8
E 1.02 4.85 2.5 1.04 5.62 9.1 0.88 5.51 1.8 0.59 6.69 7.8 2.46 3.82 0.1
ESE 1.41 4.08 6.9 1.19 5.00 1.9 0.80 4.50 1.8 0.74 6.59 2.5 0.47 6.21 0.4
SE 1.27 4.26 9.9 0.71 5.81 0.9 0.75 3.95 1.3 1.03 5.35 5.5 0.47 6.03 3.8
SSE 0.68 4.96 3.8 0.76 5.48 7.5 0.92 4.96 6.1 0.80 5.06 6.7 0.51 6.54 13.5
S 0.77 4.62 2.2 0.63 5.85 4.2 0.81 5.46 17.6 0.93 4.93 2.5 1.16 4.85 11.0
SSW 0.35 9.90 4.8 0.40 9.60 5.8 0.50 6.50 4.1 0.67 5.94 0.6 1.26 4.67 2.0
SW 0.45 7.69 13.4 0.38 8.74 15.8 0.42 8.63 12.4 0.58 5.77 3.2 1.14 4.78 1.1
WSW 0.74 4.95 8.8 0.40 8.42 3.4 0.57 9.01 4.0 0.68 6.00 13.8 0.88 3.81 1.3
W 0.59 4.84 0.7 0.48 8.68 0.2 0.51 10.1 5.3 0.66 7.30 16.7 0.59 5.61 1.4
WNW 0.42 8.33 0.6 0.65 8.27 0.3 0.39 7.05 3.8 0.49 9.15 23.6 0.70 6.49 18.8
NW 0.46 7.68 7.0 0.36 8.39 0.5 0.55 4.96 1.8 0.39 8.27 5.9 0.53 7.29 19.0
NNW 0.48 6.26 15.1 0.32 6.95 2.5 1.28 4.07 2.9 0.55 4.18 0.5 0.50 5.49 16.2
N 0.61 5.46 5.3 0.46 7.21 44.5 0.59 3.81 1.0 1.69 4.88 0.2 0.89 4.10 8.3
– C6-72 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
100-year-recurrence basic wind speed U 0 and 500-year-recurrence wind speed U 500 based on the
annual maximum wind speed approximated by a Gumbel distribution. The mean value and the
standard deviation of the T -year maximum value can be obtained from these values based on the
method described in chapter 2. A calculated example for the mean value, the standard deviation and
the coefficient of variation of 50-year maximum values is shown in appendix Table 6.6.1. The
difference between U 500 and U 0 is 4m/s and the coefficient of variation is about 0.08 to 0.11 in
most areas other than the Okinawa Islands.
Appendix Table 6.6.1 Mean value, standard deviation and coefficient of variation for 50-year
maximum values of wind speed
50-year maximum value
coefficient of
city U 0 (m/s) U 500 (m/s) standard deviation
mean (m/s) variation
(m/s)
Sapporo 30.5 34.5 30.2 3.2 0.11
Aomori 31.0 35.0 30.7 3.2 0.10
Sendai 30.5 34.5 30.2 3.2 0.11
Niigata 37.0 41.0 36.7 3.2 0.09
Tokyo 36.0 40.0 35.7 3.2 0.09
Nagoya 32.5 36.5 32.2 3.2 0.10
Osaka 34.5 38.5 34.2 3.2 0.09
Hiroshima 30.0 34.0 29.7 3.2 0.11
Kochi 39.0 43.0 38.7 3.2 0.08
Fukuoka 33.5 37.5 33.2 3.2 0.10
Kagoshima 42.0 46.0 41.7 3.2 0.08
speed profile factor E H deviates 25% at H = 5 m, 15% at H = 100 m and 10% at H = 200 m, and
the coefficients of variation can be estimated as half their values as follows;
0.13 at H = 5 m
0.08 at H = 100 m
0.05 at H = 200 m
(5) Wind force coefficient, wind pressure coefficient
The case for a rectangular plan building is introduced here as an example for wind force coefficients
of horizontal wind load for structural frames of a building whose reference height is greater than 45m.
Wind tunnel test results obtained from reference papers and so on vary with aspect ratio and side ratio
of the building, and the wind force coefficients shown in Table A6.8 are their mean. For the vertical
distribution of wind force coefficient, test values at heights from 0.2 H to 0.9 H are mostly within
the range of ±10% of these recommendation values. For the overturning moment coefficient at the
building base, most test results are within the range of ±20% of these recommendation values. If a
building has a corner recess, the wind force coefficient generally takes a safe value66). Therefore, if
these recommendations are adopted for such a building, its design is generally safe.
Horizontal wind force coefficients for structural frames of a rectangular plan building whose
reference height is 45m or less are influenced not only by building shape but also by many other
parameters such as wind characteristics. The values shown in Table A6.9(1) are simplified so that they
represent the results under various conditions. Therefore, their values are 10-30% greater than actual
ones, and 50% greater in some parts. They exceed 30% in part Lb when the roof slope is 30° or less,
but about 10-20% in parts WU and La . Furthermore, they may exceed 30% in part RLb when the
roof slope is less than 30° but about 10-20% in part RU on negative pressure parts and positive
pressure parts.
For the external pressure coefficient C pe , to calculate the roof wind load on structural frames
around the leading edge of the eave, for example, for B / H ≥ 6 and D / H > 1 , the spatial mean
value of the test results deviates within the range of ±30% of these recommendation values of -1.0.
The positive and negative peak external pressure coefficients of the roof wind load for
components/claddings are determined from the maximum and minimum peak external pressures on
each part of the building for all wind directions. These values vary with wind profile, wind tunnel test
condition (such as sampling frequency, measuring position), side ratio and size reduction rate of the
test model and so on. Their coefficients of variation are about 0.2.
(6) Gust effect factor G D
The parameters that influence the gust effect factor G D of the horizontal wind load for structural
frames, excluding the height and the width of the building, are the natural frequency f D of the first
translational mode in the along-wind direction, the critical damping ratio ζ D of the first translational
mode in along-wind direction, the design wind speed U H , turbulence scale LH , turbulence intensity
I H and the exponent of the power law α in the wind speed profile. The influence of these
parameters on the gust effect factor varies with the flat terrain subcategory, the assumed building
– C6-76 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
shape and so on. Here, the reference height H = 80 m, the width B = 40 m, the natural frequency for
the first translational mode f D = 0.5 Hz, the critical damping ratio for the first translational mode
ζ D = 2 %, the basic wind speed U 0 = 39 m/s and the flat terrain subcategory III are assumed. The
increase of the gust effect factor ΔGD when each parameter is increased by 1% individually is shown
in appendix Table 6.6.2.
Appendix Table 6.6.2 Increase of gust effect factor ΔGD when value of each parameter is
increased by 1% individually
parameter increase of gust effect factor ΔGD
natural frequency f D −0.29%
critical damping ratio ζ D −0.16%
design wind speed U H 0.34%
turbulence intensity I H 0.55%
turbulence scale LH −0.07%
exponent of power law α 0.02%
For example, if the coefficient of variation of the critical damping ratio is 20%, that for the gust
effect factor caused by the critical damping ratio is estimated as 0.16×0.20=0.032.
Although the gust effect factor of the roof wind load for structural frames is influenced by various
parameters, the difference between the maximum loading effect for roof structural frames obtained
from these recommendations and the wind tunnel test results is within 15% and mostly around 30%.
(7) Natural frequency and critical damping ratio of first mode
“Damping in Buildings”7) proposed an estimation formula for the natural frequency and the critical
damping ratio of the first mode. When the dispersion of the values calculated from these proposed
formula is evaluated as the coefficient of variation of the difference between these recommendation
values and the field measurement values, the coefficient of variation of the natural frequency for the
first mode is about 0.1-0.5 for reinforced concrete structures, steel reinforced concrete structures and
steel structures, and that of the critical damping ratio for the first mode is about 0.2 for reinforced
concrete structure and steel reinforced concrete structures, about 0.3 for steel structures.
(8) Turbulence intensity I H
Fig.A6.1.17 compares the turbulence intensities of these recommendations and field measurements.
The coefficient of variation of the difference between these values can be estimated as about 0.2 for
flat terrain subcategory III where many field measurement data have been obtained.
(9) Turbulence scale LH
Fig.A6.1.21 compares the turbulence scales of these recommendations and field measurements. The
coefficient of variation of the difference between these values can be estimated as about 0.5.
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-77 –
Horizontal wind load for structural frames: VWD = Vρ2 + 4VU2H + VC2D + VG2D (Appendix 6.6.2)
where
VWD : coefficient of variation of horizontal wind load for structural frames WD
VWC : coefficient of variation of wind load for components/cladding WC
Vρ : coefficient of variation of air density ρ
VU H : coefficient of variation of design wind speed U H
VCD : coefficient of variation of wind force coefficient C D
VG D : coefficient of variation of gust effect factor G D
VĈ : coefficient of variation of peak wind force coefficient ĈC
C
When a building with reference height H = 80 m, width B = 40 m, natural frequency for first
translational mode f D = 0.5 Hz, and critical damping ratio for first translational mode ζ D = 2 % is
constructed in a region of flat terrain subcategory III in each city of appendix Table 6.6.1, the
coefficient of variation VWD can be estimated as around 0.3 to 0.33 for wind load on structural frames
and the coefficient of variation VWC can be estimated as around 0.32 to 0.35 for wind load on
components/claddings.
References
Observation of wind speed profiles in Tokyo city area using doppler soda, Proceedings of 16th
National Symposium on Wind Engineering, pp.13-18, 2000 (in Japanese)
23) Kondo, K., Kawai, H., Kawaguchi, A: Topographic multipliers for mean and fluctuating wind
velocities around up-slope cliffs, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural
Institute of Japan, pp.105-106, 2001 (in Japanese)
24) Kawai, H., Kondo, K: Topographic multipliers around micro-topography, Summaries of Technical
Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, pp.103-104, 2003 (in Japanese)
25) Tsuchiya, M., Kondo, K., Kawai, H., Sanada, S: Effect of micro-topography on design wind
velocity, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan,
pp.119-120, 1999 (in Japanese)
26) Meng, Y., Hibi, K: An experimental study of turbulent boundary layer over steep hills, Proceedings
of 15th National Symposium on Wind Engineering, pp.61-66, 1998
27) Goto, S., Suda, K. Miyashita, K: Profiles of turbulence intensity on the basis of full scale
measurements, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan
B-1, pp.111-112, 2002 (in Japanese)
28) Eurocode ENV 1991-2-4: 1997
29) Kamei, I. and Maruta, E: Wind Tunnel Test for evaluating wind pressure coefficients of buildings
with a gable roof -Part 2-, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural
Institute of Japan, Structures, 1981, pp.1041-1042 (in Japanese)
30) Kanda, M. and Maruta; E: Study on design wind pressure coefficient of low rise buildings with a
flat roof or a gable roof -Part 3- Averaging wind pressure coefficient and wind direction,
Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, Structures Ⅰ,
1992, pp.119-120 (in Japanese)
31) Ueda, H., Tamura, Y. and Fujii; K: Effect of turbulence of approaching wind on mean wind
pressures acting on flat roofs -Part 1- Study on characteristics of wind pressure acting on flat roofs,
Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, No. 425, pp.91-99, 1991 (in Japanese)
32) Ueda, H., Hagura, H. and Oda, H: Characteristics of stress generated by wind pressures and wind
loads acting on stiff two-dimensional arches supporting a barrel roof, Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering, AIJ, No. 496,pp.29-35, 1997 (in Japanese)
33) Kikuchi, T., Ueda, H. and Hibi, K: Characteristics of wind pressures acting on the curved roofs,
Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, Structures Ⅰ,
2003, pp.147-148 (in Japanese)
34) Nogichi, M., Uematsu, Y: Design wind pressure coefficients for spherical domes, Journal of Wind
Engineering, JAWE, No.95, 2003, pp.177-178 (in Japanese)
35) Chino, N. and Okada, H: Wind-induced internal pressures in buildings, Part 1 mean internal
pressures, Journal of Wind Engineering, JAWE, No.56, 1993, pp.11-20 (in Japanese)
36) Schewe, G: On the force fluctuations acting on a circular cylinder in crossflow from subcritical up
to transcritical Rynolds numbers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.133, pp.265-285, 1983
– C6-80 – Recommendations for Loads on Buildings
37) Uematsu, Y., Yamada, M: Aerodynamic forces on circular cylinders of finite height, Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.51, pp.249-265, 1994
38) Uematsu, Y: Design wind force coefficients for free-standing canopy roofs,Journal of Wind
Engineering, JAWE, No.95, 2003, pp.181-182 (in Japanese)
39) JEC-127, The Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan 1979 (in Japanese)
40) Nishimura, H: Aerodynamic Characteristics of Shapes yielding Stagnated Flow, GBRC, No.106,
2002, pp.19-24 (in Japanese)
41) Nishimura, H, Asami, Y, Takamori K. and Okeya M: A wind tunnel study of fluctuating pressures
on buildings – Part4 Pressure coefficient and drag coefficient, Summaries of Technical Papers of
Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of JAPAN, Structures I, 1992, pp.57-58 (in Japanese)
42) Katagiri, J, Kawabata, S, Niihori, Y, and Nakamura, O: Pressure Characteristics of Rectangular
cylinders with Cut Corner, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural
Institute of Japan, Structures Ⅰ, 1992, pp.47-48 (in Japanese)
43) Ohtake, K: Peak wind pressure coefficients for cladding of a tall building - Part 1 Characteristics
of peak pressure, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of
Japan, Structures Ⅰ, 2000, pp.193-194 (in Japanese)
44) Ohtake, : Peak wind pressure coefficients for cladding of a tall building - Part 2 Stretch of Peak
Wind Pressure, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan,
Structures Ⅰ, 2001, pp.143-144 (in Japanese)
45) Maruta, E., Ueda, H. and Kanda, M: Local wind pressure on gable roofs, Summaries of Technical
Papers of Annual Meeting College of Industrial Technology Nihon University, 1991, pp.33-36 (in
Japanese)
46). Uematsu, Y: Peak gust pressures acting on low-rise building roofs, Proceedings of the 8th East
Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, Singapore, 2001
47) Uematsu, Y, Yamada, M: Fluctuating wind pressures on buildings and structures of circular
cross-section at high Reynolds numbers, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Wind
Engineering, New Delhi, 1995, pp.358-368
48) Okada, H. and Chino, N: Wind-induced internal pressures in buildings, Part 2 gust response factor
of internal pressure, Journal of Wind Engineering, JAWE, No.58, 1994, pp.43-53 (in Japanese)
49) Chino, N, Okada, H. and Kikitsu, H: On a new way to estimate wind load on cladding considering
correlation between external and internal pressures, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual
Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, Structures Ⅰ, 2000, pp.197-198 (in Japanese)
50). International Standard ISO4354, 1997
51) Asami, Y, Nakamura, O: A proposal for alongwind load model, Summaries of Technical Papers of
Annual Meeting, AIJ, Structures I, pp.195-196, 2002 (in Japanese)
52) Asami, Y, Kondo, K, Hibi, K: Experimental research of aerodynamic force on rectangular prism,
Journal of Wind Engineering, JAWE, 91, pp.83-88, 2002 (in Japanese)
53) Holmes, J. D: Effective static load distributions in wind engineering, Journal of Wind Engineering
CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS – C6-81 –