x ,

JOU~ OF

% i"
ELSEVIER
Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics 54/55 (1995) 383-396

W i n d l o a d s o n l o w rise b u i l d i n g s - A review
Prem Krishna 1
University of Roorkee, Roorkee, lndia

Abstract

The subject of this paper pertains to an apparently well researched area. A good number of
research efforts the world over have involved for decades the determination of wind loads on
low rise buildings. However, the subject continues to be a live area of enquiry. There are several
reasons for it. A rather large number of factors affect wind loads on low rise buildings, besides
also the wide range of the variables involved. Furthermore, it is true that a vast majority of
buildings fall under the category of "low-rise'. Research has produced new and important
information which is relevant to the safety of engineering constructions, and even more to the
millions of partially-engineered ones. Two earlier works by Stathopoulos [1] and Holmes [2]
made a review on the subject. This paper covers a wider scope and attempts to put together the
state-of-the-art of the information available.

Nomenclature

Cp m e a n pressure coefficient
Cp local peak suction coefficient
local peak pressure coefficient
H spacer height
J Jensen n u m b e r
L tube length
T paver thickness
Vr reference velocity
d tube diameter
h building height
1 building length
w building width
z roughness length

1Professor of Civil Engineering.

0167,6105/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDI 0 1 6 7 - 6 1 0 5 ( 9 4 ) 0 0 0 5 5 - 1
384 P. Krishna /J. Wind Eng. Ind Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995) 383-396

power law index

0 wind incidence angle
~b roof slope

1. Introduction

The majority of the structures built all over the world can be categorised as low-rise
buildings used for commercial, industrial, residential and other purpose. These build-
ings are constructed in different types of terrain and topography with various plan
forms. The lateral strength of buildings in areas other than the high seismic zones is
mainly governed by wind loads and this aspect is more evident in zones of severe wind
such as coastal regions, open terrains and summit of hills. The study of wind effects on
a building or a structure consists of two parts, namely (i) evaluation of wind loads and
(ii) estimation of its response to these loads. In the context of this paper only the
former is addressed.
Regarding wind loads on buildings the significance of the geometry was recognised
early. Studies carried out have lead to important conclusions regarding the influence
of roof slope upon wind loading, and the superiority of the hipped roof over the gable
type. Geometric variables not covered can be taken into account by additional wind
tunnel effort, though this is not a small task by any means. Understandably, several
other aspects of the problem, apart from just the one of geometry, need attention.
Such issues include consideration of wide spans, presence of canopies or parapets,
openings in the walls, porosity of the roof, stability of looselaid roofing, the occurrence
of larger pressure/suction averages near the edges or the ridge. Furthermore, there is
the realisation that knowledge of mean pressures alone is not adequate to ensure the
safety of the building and it is necessary to know the fluctuations and the peak values
as well, particularly where severe winds are concerned, or where the dynamic response
becomes important. This realisation forms the backdrop of the research and develop-
ment related to low-rise buildings during the last 15 to 20 years.
Next, one must address the issue of the correctness or the accuracy with which the
required information can be obtained. While commendable efforts are being done to
determine wind effects on buildings and structures computationally, measurements on
physical models (or prototypes) are yet the forte. The rudimentary requirement is
having sensitive and accurate pressure transducers and a system with appropriate
frequency response. While field work has its own painstaking and exacting require-
ments, wind tunnel work is no less demanding. Tests on models in the wind tunnels
involve the modelling of the structure, representing all its geometrical characteristics
to a properly chosen scale (keeping in view blockage effects), the modelling of the
boundary layer flow provided that its characteristics for the relevant site are known 2,
choice of the number of pressure ports and their location which should take cognizance

2Jensen [3] demonstrated decades ago the effect on pressure distribution of flow characteristics as
influencedby the roughness of the approach terrain (Fig. 1).
 P. Krishna/3. WindEng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 H995) 383-396 385

r-.. I~
FULL SCALE
WIND
MODEL

. o3, .58
°"°I IF
o.,oiI 1
°.,°111
_L |o 3 .ogs' J 0.10 - 1
o.1o -I
hm =OO SMOOTH TERRAIN) hm =13 (ROUGH TERRAIN)
z z
(NEASUREMENTSIN cm)
VALUESIN PARENTHESES ARE hf : F U L L SCALE HEIGHT~ hm:MODEL HEIGHT~
FOR FULL SCALE MODEL z : ROUGHNESS LENGTH, - -hf : 170
z

Fig. 1. Variation of wind pressure coefficients with the roughness of approach terrain [3].

Table 1
C o m p a r i s o n of m e a n pressure coefficients on gable roof building from various codes of practice (h/w ~< 1/2,
3/2 < l/w < 4, roof slope 0 = 30 °, wind normal to ridge)

No. Country A B C D E F

1 India 0.70 - 0.25 - 0.60 - 0.60 0.00 - 0.40

2 Australia 0.80 - 0.25 - 0.60 - 0.60 - 0.20 - 0.70
3 Canada 0.70 - 0.50 - 0.70 - 0.70 - 0.56 - 0.50 '"~*IND>
4 Czechoslovakia 0.80 - 0.60 - 0.60 - 0.60 0.00 - 0.40
5 Japan 0,80 - 0.40 -- -- 0.15 - 0.50 ( j ///~~'tK~ 2/ ~
6 New Zealand 0,90 - 0.50 - 0.70 - 0.70 - 0.50 - 0.70
7 Portugal 0,80 - 0.50 - 0.70 - 0.70 - 0.10 - 0.50
8 Rumania 0,80 - 0.40 - 0.40 - 0.40 0.20 - 0.40
9 Sweden 0,80 - 0.40 - 0.40 - 0.40 0.20 - 0.40
10 UK 0.70 - 0.25 - 0.60 - 0.60 0.20 - 0.40
11 Uruguay 0.80 - 0.40 - 0.40 0.40 - 0.20 - 0.40 ~ w ~ "~
12 USSR 0.80 - 0.60 - 0.60 - 0.60 0.00 - 0.40

of the importance of edge/corner pressures as against the overall average, and, the
choice of the reference pressure. There has been concerted effort to examine measure-
ment techniques vis-a-vis their frequency response to enable a more accurate deter-
mination of fluctuating pressures, and furthermore the issues related to averaging.
Another important issue which has received attention is t h e a p p r o p r i a t e modelling of
the ABL, particularly in its lower reaches wherein low rise buildings are placed.
Compared to fluctuating pressures the determination of mean wind pressures
is a s i m p l e r e x e r c i s e . M e a s u r e m e n t s made in wind tunnels, or, on prototypes in the
field have led to the available information on "local" or "face" mean pressures, on
which the codes of practice are based. However, it m u s t b e s t a t e d t h a t e v e n f o r t h e
most straightforward cases a scatter exists amongst the codal values - see Table 1
as an example. Further, exercises like the Aylesbury International Experiment
386 P. Krishna / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995) 383-396

have strongly pointed to differences amongst the results of different wind tunnel
studies even for a well defined problem. This emphatically points to a need for seeking
the reasons, and, indeed the search continues. In the wake of the Aylesbury experi-
ment, or, alongside of it, several experimental programmes have been initiated
involving full scale measurements, namely, on the Texas Tech University experimental
building, Silsoe structure building and the Jan Smuts building. These studies include
also a comparison of full scale and model results. The first amongst these programmes,
on the Texas Tech building, has interested many engineering research laboratories.
The following material is a review of the existing state-of-the-information on the
subject, as borne out by the research papers appearing in the conferences on Wind
Engineering over the last decade or so. Due to paucity of space only few papers have
been discussed, that too very briefly.

2. Building geometry and features

Studies carried out to determine wind pressure distributions cover a wide range of
geometrical variables and roof forms involved. Many studies also included the effect
of wind incidence angle. Some studies and their findings are briefly mentioned below.
Almost all building standards and codes recommend a constant value of pressure
coefficients for all values of height-to-width-ratio smaller than or equal to 0.5. This
implies that pressures on buildings are insensitive to values below 0.5. The effect of
large width for a low rise building with fiat roof studied by Gerhardt and Kramer I-4]
has brought out interesting results, the typical ones are shown in Fig. 2. It was
observed by the authors that the roof pressure distribution is strongly affected by the
relative building height for buildings with height-to-width-ratio greater than or equal
to 0.1. This information has yet to find a place in building standards and codes.
Another aspect concerns the building form itself. In a paper of far reaching conse-
quence to building architecture, Meecham 1-5] has reported the superiority of a hipped
roof over a gable form. Typical results are shown in Fig. 3. It was found by the author
that for the hip roof, peak pressures get reduced by as much as 50°,/o from those of

HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO

(h/w)
==IP -= 0,20

•--4k.---- 0.10
0.05
2,

,,4 JENSEN N U M B E R ( J ) =11

EXPONENT OF VELOCITY
PROFILE (or.) = 0.24

l w/2 .I
Fig. 2. Influence of height for a low and wide building on roof pressure field I-4].
 P. Krishna / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995) 383-396 387

-55 -5,0
/ -5.0 ~.- 5.5

_ -2.5 41
~,~ - .
° - --"-"~ilIYA

GABLE ROOF -5.~0-5'B HIP ROOF

Fig. 3. Worst peak negative pressure coefficients - all azimuths [5].

gable roof. The choice of this shape can, therefore, bring about a very substantial
decrease in wind forces on a roof. It is interesting that several types of huts in coastal
regions, though nonengineered, tend to follow this shape. Likewise, Blackmore [6]
has given an interesting foresight into the effect of chamfering the building edges at
different angles. He has reported that roof loads reduce with increase in chamfer angle.
Reductions as high as 70% in averaged load on a corner panel and 30% in overall
design load are observed. Similarly, several extensive studies on canopies and parapets
such as those by Jancauskas and Eddleston [7], Baskaran and Stathopoulos [8],
Ginger and Letchford [9], Kareem and Lu [10], etc. have been made.
Stathopoulos and Saathoff [11] reporting an extensive study on saw-tooth roofs,
a common occurrence on industrial complexes, compare their results with the values
given in the Australian code [12] (see Table 2). While some values agree well, others
differ markedly. Singh [13] and Gupta [14] carried out wind tunnel tests on models of
an industrial building with skylight to study the effects of roof slope, height of skylight,
model scale, terrain roughness, wind incidence angle and permeability. Ishizaki and
Yoshikawa [15], Ahuja [16] and Kumar [17] carried out wind pressure measure-
ments on cylindrical roof models to study the effects of both geometric and wind
parameters. Typical results are shown in Fig. 4.

3. Roof cladding

Dislocation or failure of roof cladding elements, though a localized problem, could

no doubt lead to a chain of problems during a windstorm. The pressure field on pavers
or insulation boards thus assumes importance. A schematic in Fig. 5 shows a paver
indicating the pattern of flow and the pressure field over it [18].
388 P. Krishna / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995) 383-396

II I

~oc5
I

r~

~=--~
I

<

"F.

I 7
cqC~l
c~
,m

~11t
I

I
Y
Y
c~

II I

U? I~
?.
c~

,m

~N~N~NmN N
 P. Krishna/~ WindEng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995) 383-396 389

I~IND
SAG TO
2 3 4 5 NOTATION MODEL SPANRATIO
6 1 1 oT
0
A 0-00
8 i B 0.06
C 0.10
MODEL A MODEL B MODEL C
ORIGIN 500 )J
PLAN END VIEWS
h;7~ [ ,.]
DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETERS
T ELEVATION

y/wAT SECTION 1-1 y/w AT SECTION 3-3

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 . 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
o.ol.." . , , , 1,0 o.ol , , , , ,

Fig. 4. Variation of mean pressure coefficient with sag-to-span-ratio (0 = 90 °) [16].

• WIND
SEPARATION FLOW ~ , LOCALVELOCITY (V r)
~.0rac p = Cp(BOTTOM)-Ep (TOP)= ,,A
REGION / ~=/ MEASUREMENT 0"8[NET UPLIFTC0EFFIClENT-.,.,.~/
_ t IC'p ( BOTTOM),L

,. . . . !

MILLIMETERS (
STAGNATION
~ 13 /
°-Oo.E
- .6
./ ]1; ; .
. . . . . .

Vr LOCATION
. :,.
REGION
IK--TAP LOCATIONS-~

Fig. 5. Local flow over and pressure coefficients for a shingle [18].

In one of the early studies on the subject, Hazelwood [19] has illustrated the
pattern of wind pressures, both on the top as well as the underside of tiles, and,
identified the mechanism leading to their instability. It is seen that wind causes an
uplift and overturning of such loose-laid roof elements. Kind, Savage and Wardlaw
[20] have made a wind tunnel study of insulation boards and provided information
for predicting wind speeds at which loose-laid boards or paving slabs will get
dislodged. The work of Kramer and Gerhardt [21] gives an insight into the behaviour
of permeable roofing systems. In yet another significant piece of work Gerhardt et al.
[22] bring out the relationship between the underside pressure and the external
pressure and wind permeability of the layer consisting of pavers. A theoretical
approach is used to predict failure wind speed.
390 P. Krishna / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995) 383-396

_2.0
9.7rnm ~._GA P = g

_1.5

THICKNESS
OF AIR g/w LEAKAGE
- LAYER (turn) (%) HOLE
_0.5 ~1
o 1 1.0 YES
I~= o.o
g &
[]
V
3
4
6
1.0
1.0
1.0
YES
YES
YES
0.5
• 3 0-0 NO
q'.~
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0w

Fig. 6. Effect of air-layer and leakage hole on wind force distribution on roof insulation block [23].

i
c;
(~ "-<)-- Cp
- ~ |- -
L
H = SPACER HEIGHT
i'- T = PAVER THICKNESS
.101 J I I i
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
H/T

Fig. 7. Variation of overall maximum suction underneath loose-laid pavers with HIT ratio 1-24].

Amano, Fujii and Tazaki [23] described the wind loading mechanism on blocks in
external roof insulation systems, with relatively thick air-layers underneath. Typical
results are shown in Fig. 6. Bienkiewicz and Sun [24] studied the wind loading on
a loose-laid paver system. The effects of spacer height on the underneath pressure are
noted. It was found that both the overall mean and peak suctions were reduced
significantly when a spacer, even of a very low height was introduced (Fig. 7).
From the work reported on cladding elements it is seen that the introduction of
a small volume of air underneath the cladding can lead to a substantial reduction in
the net pressure field over the element and leads to a good pressure equilibrium. Only
the results given in Ref. [23] indicate that the increase in the air volume may affect the
overall pressure to some extent, though the change is not significant.
 P. Krishna/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995) 383-396 391

4. Interference

A vast majority of effort in determining pressures on low-rise buildings has concen-

trated on increasing the data base and its accuracy to cater for building variables and
flow variables, mostly dealing with a single building. This in itself is a voluminous and
challenging effort. However, it is commonplace, particularly in housing colonies and
in situations where the pressure on land space is high, that buildings are made in
clusters - in a systematic, or even an unsystematic fashion. That interference amongst
these buildings will often lead to shielding, and in other cases, increase of the loads on
any particular building is expected. Tsutsumi, Katayama and Nishida [25] have
presented a detailed study of wind pressures on regularly aligned buildings.

5. Fluctuating/peak pressures

Edges, corners or the ridge in a building experience larger wind pressures than the
overall average over the roof. In this context it is important to know the pressure
fluctuations or their peaks not only over the roof surface generally but the edges
particularly. Thus the thrust of most recent research on low-rise buildings has been to
determine these pressures. The effort to do this is extensive, but results from different
studies have commonly shown a marked lack of agreement. Remarks made by
Kramer [26] at the Seventh International Conference on Wind Engineering make
significant reading and are quoted below.
"The pressure coefficients on flat roofs reported by various researchers differ
significantly, especially in the corner regions and regions close to the roof edges. For
example, the data previously published by Stathopoulos, Davenport and Surry [27]
are less than half as high as the values measured by Kind and Wardlaw [28] and our
own results presented at the 1978 3rd Aachen Colloquium [29]."
That such differences have been showing up is not a matter of surprise because the
fluctuations and peaks are affected by a variety of factors such as the modelling of the
boundary layer, vertical (as well as perhaps the cross) turbulence, position of the
pressure ports in the vicinity of the edges or the corners and their spacing, averaging
area and the averaging time. (See for example, discussions on the work of
Stathopoulos [30] and Blackmore [31].)
The work of several authors [32-35], while still finding large differences between
the model and prototype values, has shown that peak suction coefficients approach
values as high as 12 or more. The significance of this in design is to ensure much
stronger anchorage in such zones of high suction. One of the ways of getting an
improved pressure distribution is to have a certain degree of porosity in the roof
surface or membrane. This has been investigated by Cheung and Melbourne [36],
which shows reduction in pressure peaks due to the porosity in the roof. The study
also relates the roof pressures to the volume of air enclosed under the roof surface.
Apart from the several issues related to the modelling of flow and the building, there
is the aspect of having pressure transducers and the accompanying system, such that
fluctuations in pressure can be truthfully picked up. The ideal is to have high
392 P. Krishna /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995) 383-396

frequency transducers attached to each pressure port, but this is not so commonly
possible due to physical as well as financial limitations. The next best is to have
a multiplicity of fine tubes feeding into a good standard transducer. The diameter and
length of the tubes has a marked effect on the frequency of the air column operating
within the tube. Sockel and Ottisch [37] demonstrate this phenomenon as well as the
validity of their numerical procedure that predicts it (Fig. 8). These authors have also
shown the efficiency of using restrictors, as indeed brought out by Holmes and Lewis
[38] earlier. Another approach is demonstrated by Yoshida, Kondo and Suzuki [39]
in which they correct the distortions by a FFT digital filter method (Fig. 9). They have
shown that the approach is suitable for long tubes of larger diameter also which would
be needed for pressure measurements in a prototype building.

4000 d(mm) L (mrn)

1. 1.6 193-0 1 2 3 4
2. 1.0 60.0 ~ IJ
'o 3 0 0 0 3. 1-6 260.0
t, 4. END VOLUME =170.0 m m 3

n 1000 , PUT

MERICAL uuieu
Iltl Illl I, IIIIIIIII I Ill hi IIII iIII IIIIIIIIJllllll
, i , I i i I I I I I I , , , i I I I I I I

0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

TIME Isec)
Fig. 8. Comparison of the experimental values of pressure measured by using a tube with restrictor with
numerical values [37].

20 TUBE l I i
LENGTH=30 m I INSIDE D I A . = 1 5 m m

10 I / ~ REFERE NCE h -

I/I
I,a.I

o. -10 T

UNCORRECTED

-20 I I I
0.2 0.7 1.2 1.7 2.2
TIM E ( sec )

Fig. 9. Comparison of distorted and corrected pressures received through the tube against reference
pressure measured directly 1-39].
 P. Krishna/J. WindEng. Ind Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995)383-396 393

6. Full scale measurements

There still exist limitations in the extent to which the atmospheric wind and the
structure can be modelled in a wind tunnel, not withstanding the highly developed
understanding of the problems involved and the techniques of modelling. The evid-
ence of this is none too difficult to find given the wide scatter in available data even for
ostensibly similar situations. (The Aylesbury is a ready example.) This has brought to
the fore the need to carry out full scale testing. An excellently designed set-up at the
Texas Tech University has already yielded very useful results, and, efforts to correlate
these with wind tunnel measurement as well as theoretical work. Mehta et al. [32], in
one of their latest papers have described results of full scale measurements of the wind
experienced and the pressures obtained. It is noteworthy that while Cp peaks show
considerable scatter; their values touch - 12 (corroborates with Stathopoulos's values;
- 10 or more). Other related studies of interest are those by Cochran and Cermak
[33], and Okada and Ha [34]. Likewise, of great utility are studies by Paterson and
Holmes [40] on an Arched roof building, Richards and Hoxey [41] on Silsoe
structures and Milford, Goliger and Waldeck [35] on the Jan Smuts building. The
general observation is that whereas mean pressure coefficients in wind tunnel studies
are comparable with full scale measurements, comparison of the peak pressure
coefficients is less satisfactory.

7. Codal provisions

The preceding sections of this paper have concentrated upon highlighting the
different aspects of the problem of wind pressures on low-rise buildings, the thrust of
related research work, and, the state-of-information as seen by this author. The
discussion has centered primarily around single buildings, or, a group thereof in
a systematic pattern. Though the scatter in the results for peak values still is quite
marked, the extensive work being done in this area is producing a commendable
database of increasing accuracy. Indeed the purpose is to provide the designer with as
accurate a set of pressure coefficients as possible. The codal values of pressure
coefficients are derived through a statistical reduction of pressure data over a given
surface area of reference, and the codal provisions are empirically based. Thus far one
has considered only single buildings. The ground reality is that in the immediate
vicinity of a building, there are a number of other structures often of wide ranging
dimensions, placed mostly in a random manner. The implication of this is that even if
one could get the most accurate set of pressure coefficients for a building (in the "stand
alone" situation), the information will not be representative of the building when
placed amongst a "mixed" immediate terrain. Ho, Surry and Davenport [42] have
reported an experimental study in a wind tunnel of four identical flat-roofed buildings
placed randomly in a suburban complex. There is significant variability in the loads
on these buildings, though these are placed in similar surroundings. This pilot study
which establishes the need for creating a wide database for buildings placed in realistic
surroundings and then to reduce the data statistically into codal values, has been
394 P. Krishna /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995) 383-396

followed by 20 combinations of buildings/surroundings/exposure tested in the wind

tunnel. Peak coefficients derived therefrom show differences with the available codal
values, and stress the need for carrying out further studies on these lines.

8. Conclusions

A large number of parameters and the variability involved make the determination
of wind effects in buildings a formidable problem, and there is no wonder that despite
efforts spanning over a half century, the information available is yet not comprehens-
ive enough to cover the variables involved, and the codal provisions still need
updating. Efforts being made, particularly, in reference to the determination of peak
pressures, both from model and prototype experiments are noteworthy, and are
leading to the availability of a more accurate database for single buildings. Equally
valuable are studies on possible measures to reduce peak pressures, such as the
chamfering of edges, use of parapets, and, having limited degree of porosity in the
insulation membrane. Likewise effort to obtain statistical data on buildings placed
amongst a group, or, randomly within a suburban terrain, are bound to lead to codal
provisions of greater realism and thus reliability.

Acknowledgement

The work of all authors which has been used as source and made this review paper
possible is gratefully acknowledged. This writer is also thankful to his associates for
assistance in preparing the paper.

References
[1] T. Stathopoulos, Wind loads on low rise buildings a review of the state-of-the-art, Eng. Struct. 6 (1984).
[2] J.D. Holmes, Wind loads on rise building- a review, CSIRO, Division of Building Research, Highett,
Victoria, Australia, 1993.
[3] M. Jensen, Model-law for phenomena in natural wind, Ingenioren 2, No. 4 (1959).
[4] H.J. Gerhardt and C. Kramer, Effect of building geometry on roof wind loading, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 1765-1773.
[5] D. Meecham, The improved performance of hip roofs in extreme winds - A case study, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 1717-1726.
[6] P.A. Blackmore, Load reductions on flat roofs - The effect of edge profile, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
29 (1988) 88-89.
[7] E.D. Jancauskas and J.D. Eddleston, Wind loads on canopies at the base of tall buildings, Preprints
7th Int. Conf. on Wind engineering, Vol. 3, Aachen, Germany, July 1987.
[8] A. Baskaran and T. Stathopoulos, Roof corner wind loads and parapet configurations, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 29 (1988) 79-88.
[-9] J.D. Ginger and C.W. Letchford, Peak wind loads under delta wind vortices on canopy roofs, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 41 44 (1992) 1739-1750.
[10] A, Kareem and P.C. Lu, Pressure fluctuations on flat roofs with parapets, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
41-44 (1992) 1775-1786.
 P. Krishna / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995) 383-396 395

[11] T. Stathopoulos and P. Saathoff, Codification of wind pressure coefficients for sawtooth roofs,
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 1227-1738.
[12] Australian Standard As 1170.2. Minimum design loads on structures, Part 2. Wind fores, 1989
(revision of AS1170, Part 2, 1983), Standards Association of Australia.
[13] S. Singh, Wind loads on sloping roofs with skylight, M.E. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Roorkee, India, November 1990.
[14] R. Gupta, Influence of various parameters on mean wind pressure distribution on sloping roofs, M.E.
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee, India, March 1991.
[15] H. Ishizaki and Y. Yoshikawa, A wind tunnel model experiment of wind loading on curved roofs,
Bulletin of the Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Vol. 21, March 1972.
[16] A.K. Ahnja, Wind effects on cylindrical cable roofs, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Roorkee, India, November 1989.
[ 17] R. Kumar, Mean wind pressure distribution on convex cylindrical roofs, M.E. Thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee, India, March 1991.
[-18] J.A. Peterka, G.D. Lamb and J.E. Cermak, Wind resistance of asphaltic roofing shingles, Preprints 7th
Int. Conf. on Wind Engineering, Aachen, Germany, July 1987.
1-19] R.A. Hazelwood, The interaction of the two principal wind forces on roof tiles, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 8 (1981) 39 48.
[20] R.J. Kind, M.G. Savage and R.L. Wardlaw, Prediction of wind-induced failure of loose laid roof
cladding systems, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 29 (1988) 29-37.
[21] C. Kramer and H.J. Gerhardt, Wind loads on permeable roofing systems, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
13 (1993) 347-358.
[22] H.J. Gerhardt, C. Kramer and K.K. Bofah, Wind loading on loosely laid pavers and insulation boards
for flat roofs, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 36 (1990) 309-318.
[23] T. Amano, K. Fujii and S. Tazaki, Wind loads on permeable roof-blocks in roof insulation systems, J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 29 (1988) 39-48.
[24] B. Bienkiewicz and Y. Sun, Wind-tunnel study of wind loading on losse-laid roofing systems, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 1817-1828.
[25] J. Tsutsuml, T. Katayama and M. Nishida, Wind tunnel tests of wind pressure on regularly aligned
buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 1799-1810.
[26] C. Kramer, Theme introduction and report on papers, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 29 (1988) 3-17.
1-27] T. Stathopoulos, A.G. Davenport and D. Surry, The assessment of effective wind loads acting on flat
roofs, in: Proc. 3rd Colloq. on Industrial Aerodynamics, Aachen, Germany, 14-16 June 1978.
[28] R.J. Kind and R.L. Wardlaw, Behaviour in wind of loose-laid roof insulation system, Part I. Stone
scour and blow-off, in: Proc 4th Canadian Workshop on Wind engineering, Toronto, Canada,
November 1984.
[29] C. Kramer, H.J. Gerhardt and Scherer, Wind pressures on block type buildings, in: Proc. 3rd Colloq.
on Industrial Aerodynamics, Aachen, Germany, 14-16 June 1978.
[30] Discussions on paper by T. Stathopoulos, Wind pressures on flat roof edges and corners, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 29 (1988) 121-122.
[31] Discussions on paper by P.A. Blackmore, Load reduction on flat roofs - The effect of edge profile, J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 29 (1988) 132-133.
[32] K.C. Mehta, M.L. Levitan, R.E. Iverson and J.R. McDonald, Roof corner pressures measured in the
field on a low building, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 181-192.
1-33] L.S. Cochran and J.E. Cermak, Full- and model-scale cladding pressures on the Texas Tech
University Experimental Building, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 1589-1600.
1-34] H. Okada and Y.-C. Ha, Comparison of wind tunnel and full-scale pressure measurement tests on the
Texas Tech Building, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 1601-1612.
[35] R.V. Milford, A.M. Goliger and J.L. Waldeck, Jan Smuts experiment: Comparison of full-scale and
wind tunnel results, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 4 1 4 4 (1992) 1705 1716.
[36] J.C.K. Cheung and W.H. Melbourne, Wind loading on a porous roof, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 29
(1988) 19-28.
[37] H. Sockel and F. Ottisch, Numerical and experimental investigation of pressure measuring system
with a restrictor, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 975-985.
396 P. Krishna /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 (1995) 383-396

[38] J.D. Holmes and R.E. Lewis, optimization of dynamic-pressure-measurement system. I. Single point
measurements, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 25 (1987) 249-273.
[39] M. Yoshida, K. Kondo and M. Suzuki, Fluctuating wind pressure measured with tubing system, J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn, 41-44 (1992) 987-998.
[40] D.A. Paterson and J.D. Holmes, Computations of wind pressures on low-rise structures, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 41 44 (1992) 1629-1640.
[41] P.J. Richards and R.P. Hoxey, Computational and wind tunnel modelling of mean wind loads on the
Silsoe structures building, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 1641-1652.
[42] T.C.E. Ho, D Surry and A.G. Davenport, Low building wind load variability with application to
codes, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 41-44 (1992) 1787-1798.