Horizontal Wind Loads on Open-Frame, Low-Rise Buildings

Gregory A. Kopp1; Jon K. Galsworthy2; and Jeong Hee Oh3

Abstract: Wind tunnel tests of open-frame, low-rise buildings were carried out to determine the drag 共base shear兲 and bracing loads in
the direction normal to the frames 共parallel to the ridge兲. In total, 18 configurations were examined in an open country terrain at a scale
of 1:100. The worst wind angles for all configurations are between 0°–40° with 20°–30° typically yielding slightly higher loads, 0° being
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 12/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

parallel to the ridge. The largest load coefficients are observed for the smallest frame buildings, consistent with observations for enclosed
buildings, which is due to three-dimensional 共edge兲 effects. The solidity ratio has a clear effect on the load coefficients with higher
coefficients for lower solidity, similar to the behavior observed on lattice frames or trussed towers. However, when these coefficients are
multiplied by the solidity ratio, so that they can be directly compared to enclosed building coefficients, it is clear that the total load
increases monotonically with solid area. Bracing was observed to take up to 75% of the total drag load. An empirical model was
developed for obtaining design loads.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲ST.1943-541X.0000082
CE Database subject headings: Wind loads; Buildings, low-rise; Aerodynamics; Standards and codes; Frames.
Author keywords: Wind loads; Buildings, low-rise; Aerodynamics; Standards and codes.

Introduction 共2007兲 summarizes all of work to date, in addition to providing

The ASCE 7-05 currently provides no guidance for the drag 共base
shear兲 loads on open-frame, low-rise buildings, although it does
provide guidelines for the roof loads of such structures. A recent
summary of the earlier work on roof loads on open-frame build-
ings can be found in Uematsu and Stathopoulos 共2003兲 while
Uematsu et al. 共2007兲 provide extensive new data. For gable or
monoslope roofs it seems reasonable to presume that the majority
of the drag in the direction normal to the ridge is due to the roof,
particularly for roof slopes greater than about 3:12. This is not the
case for winds parallel to the ridge where the member size of the
frames can cause significant drag. This load is largely resisted
through diagonal bracing between frames for metal buildings, and
so guidance is needed for these wind directions where roof pres-
sures are not playing the dominant role.
In determining design loads for the drag parallel to the ridge,
the current state-of-the-art is to apply drag coefficients obtained
for open lattice structures, such as those determined by Georgiou
and Vickery 共1979兲 and Georgiou 共1979兲. These authors also
summarize the existing literature prior to 1979, while Mara
1
Professor and Canada Research Chair in Wind Engineering, Bound-
ary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of
Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada N6A 5B9 共corresponding author兲.
E-mail: gakopp@uwo.ca
2
Adjunct Professor, Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, Faculty
of Engineering, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada N6A
5B9; and Project Director, Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin Inc., 650
Woodlawn Rd. West, Guelph, ON, Canada N1K 1B8.
3
Research Engineer, Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory,
Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada
N6A 5B9.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 4, 2008; approved
on June 30, 2009; published online on July 2, 2009. Discussion period
open until June 1, 2010; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, Vol. 136, No. 1, January 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2010/1-
98–105/$25.00.
new data. However, there does not appear to have been any work
done on the drag and bracing loads for open-frame, low-rise
buildings to date and the use of load coefficients for open lattice
structures leads to what appears to be excessively large loads for
low-rise buildings. The current work seeks to address this point
since the presence of both the roof and the ground would be
expected to play a significant role on the flow speeds and direc-
tions through the open building and impinging on the interior
frames, perhaps leading to quite different loads when compared to
open lattice structures. Thus, shielding factors may be different
for low-rise building frames compared to those for lattice tower
frames.
The objective of the present study is to develop an empirically
based model of the horizontal load coefficients for low-rise, open-
frame buildings. Since there are a wide range of parameters for
these buildings, many test configurations are required to develop
a model which accounts for the normal range of parameters for
practical buildings. To this end, three different frame sizes, in the
range of widths from 12.2 to 30.5 m, with building lengths con-
sisting of three, six, and nine frames for several solidity ratios are
examined in order to develop the load model in a manner consis-
tent with the ASCE 7-05 共ASCE 2006兲 for enclosed buildings and
for open buildings 共where the wind is perpendicular to the ridge兲.
Experimental Setup
A model scale of 1:100 was chosen for the study, consistent with
the scale used for the NIST aerodynamic database 关e.g., Ho et al.
共2005兲 and St. Pierre et al. 共2005兲兴 and other recent studies at the
University of Western Ontario 共UWO兲 关e.g., Kopp et al. 共2005兲兴.
This scale represents a reasonable compromise between an
achievable flow scale and a manufacturable model, both of which
are discussed in detail below.
Model Configurations and Details
One of the goals of the experiments was to determine both the
total base shear 共drag兲 as well as a reasonable estimate of the

98 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2010

J. Struct. Eng. 2010.136:98-105.

 7.6m 7.6m

90°

12.2, 21.3 and 30.5 m

Sy

End Elevation
Frame Width:

0° 180°
Sx, Bx

6
1
(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 12/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Roof Plan
3.7, 6.1 and 9.1 m

3.7, 6.1 and 9.1 m

Eave Height:

Number of frames: 3, 6 and 9

Side Elevation

Fig. 1. Drawings of the wind tunnel models with a definition sketch

of the coordinate system and wind direction
(b)

proportion going through the bracing. Thus, an approach was

taken to separate these two contributions directly. First, the entire
model was mounted to a plate which was positioned on a high
frequency force balance, allowing the overall base shear to be
measured. The mounting of the frames to the base plate was in-
tended to model pin connections, described in detail below, and
so replicate the expected load path. Second, the bracing was con-
nected to the base plate through small load cells 共which measured
the axial load in the bracing members兲 and to the top of the frame.
Using this approach, the model frames were cut from a single
piece of steel, with the dimensions shown in Fig. 1. The frame (c)
thickness was constant and equal to 1.5 mm 共=0.15 m in equiva-
lent full scale兲 for the W = 30.5 m building, and equal to 1.3 mm
共=0.13 m in full scale兲 for the W = 21.3 m and 12.2-m buildings.
The frames had rectangular sections rather than being cut like
I-beams. This is not expected to change the load coefficients sig-
nificantly, and in any case, it would not have been possible to
manufacture the model at this scale if the members had to be
made as I-beams. The roof was made of a single plate and was
pinned to the frames. Fig. 2共b兲 shows the pins, one of which is
(d)
indicated by a circle in the photograph. The frames were con-
nected to clamps on the base plate with a segment of “shim stock”
of 0.13-mm thickness, with a free length of 1.5-mm between
clamps. This connection, shown in the photograph in Fig. 2共c兲, is
intended to replicate a pinned connection in the x-direction
共where the coordinate system is defined in Fig. 1兲. While this
connection was not a “perfect” pin, unbraced single frames would
lean at a considerable angle so that the stiffness due to this con-
nection was relatively small. To provide the stiffness in the
x-direction, bracing was placed on both sides of a single bay, as (e)
shown in Figs. 1 and 2, for each model. Small load cells were
placed at the base of each model to measure the axial force in Fig. 2. Photographs of 共a兲 the generic upstream terrain in the wind
each bracing segment, as described above. Model drawings can tunnel; 共b兲 the W = 12.2 m model with three frames; 共c兲 a close-up of
be found in Fig. 1 and photographs in Fig. 2. a connection between a frame and the base; 共d兲 the gable end; and 共e兲
In total, 18 configurations were tested, as listed in Table 1. In entire end wall
particular, three different frame sizes were used, with the bulk of
the tests on the W = 21.3-m frame. Four different solidity ratios
were tested, where solidity ratio is defined as a ratio of the
blocked area to the total area enclosed by the end frame. The

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2010 / 99

J. Struct. Eng. 2010.136:98-105.

 Table 1. Model Configurations in Equivalent Full-Scale Dimensions
Frame width W Eave height H Actual area A Blocked area Ao
Configuration Description Number of frames 共m兲 共m兲 共m2兲 共m2兲 Solidity ratio Ao / A
1 Nominally open 3 12.2 3.7 50.8 8.2 0.161
2 Nominally open 6 12.2 3.7 50.8 8.2 0.161
3 Nominally open 9 12.2 3.7 50.8 8.2 0.161
4 Nominally open 9 30.5 9.1 317.5 29.3 0.092
5 Nominally open 6 30.5 9.1 317.5 29.3 0.092
6 Nominally open 3 30.5 9.1 317.5 29.3 0.092
7 Revised solidity frame 3 21.3 6.1 149.0 23.5 0.158
8 Nominally open 3 21.3 6.1 149.0 14.3 0.096
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 12/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 Gable end filled in 3 21.3 6.1 149.0 52.3 0.351

10 End wall filled in 3 21.3 6.1 149.0 149.0 1.000
11 Revised solidity frame 6 21.3 6.1 149.0 23.5 0.158
12 Nominally open 6 21.3 6.1 149.0 14.3 0.096
13 Gable end filled in 6 21.3 6.1 149.0 52.3 0.351
14 End wall filled in 6 21.3 6.1 149.0 149.0 1.000
15 Revised solidity frame 9 21.3 6.1 149.0 23.5 0.158
16 Nominally open 9 21.3 6.1 149.0 14.3 0.096
17 Gable end filled in 9 21.3 6.1 149.0 52.3 0.351
18 End wall filled in 9 21.3 6.1 149.0 149.0 1.000

lowest value of solidity ratio is due to the bare frames 共with though the integral scale is slightly small compared to the target
roofs兲, but additional values were obtained with 共1兲 a wider frame values, as is usual in wind tunnel testing of low-rise buildings.
member 共with a slightly higher solidity兲; 共2兲 the gable ends filled
in; and 共3兲 the entire end walls filled in. These additions were
Data Acquisition Parameters
made with modular parts which could be added to the frames as
required. Photographs of the model details can be found in Fig. 2, The load cell measurements were repeated for 19 wind angles
with further details in Kopp et al. 共2008兲. from 0°–180°, as defined in Fig. 1. Horizontal loads from the
No testing was performed with obstructions underneath the balance Sx and Sy as well as the horizontal bracing loads Bx were
building since the worst case for the horizontal loads is expected
to be with the building open. It should be noted that this is not the
case for uplift on the roof, but this is not a subject considered in 16
the current study. 14
12
Terrain Simulation 10
Elevation (m)

Testing was conducted in Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel II at 8

UWO. The wind tunnel has a working cross section 3.4 m 共11 ft兲 6
wide with a variable height, nominally 2.4 m 共8 ft兲 high at the
4
measurement location, with an upstream fetch of 39 m 共128 ft兲.
Fig. 2共a兲 shows a photograph of one of the building models with 2
the upstream terrain in the wind tunnel. The present experiments 0
were designed to match a reasonable open country terrain, such as 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
that used for the NIST Aerodynamic Database for Low-Rise (a) V/V10; Iu
Buildings, described in Ho et al. 共2005兲. In the current work, the
1

open country terrain is characterized by a slightly larger rough-

ness length zo of 0.05 m. These experiments were matched to the
Engineering Science Data Unit 共ESDU兲 共1982兲 82,026 mean pro-
0.1
fS(f)/σ2

files, Engineering Science Data Unit 共ESDU兲 共1983兲 83,045 tur-

bulence intensities, and Engineering Science Data Unit 共ESDU兲
0.01

共1974兲 740,031 velocity spectra for the specified target terrain

Measured
roughness. Fig. 3共a兲 depicts the measured and target 共ESDU兲 ESDU
0.001

open country mean longitudinal velocity and turbulence intensity

profiles. The mean wind speed profiles have been normalized at 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
10 m for the comparison 共using a model scale of 1:100兲. The (b) fH/U
figures show that both the experimental mean and intensity pro-
files are in good agreement with the target profiles from ESDU. Fig. 3. Measured and target 共a兲 mean streamwise velocity and turbu-
Fig. 3共b兲 depicts the longitudinal wind spectra measured by an lence intensity profiles; 共b兲 streamwise velocity spectra. Solid lines
x-wire probe, along with the target 共ESDU兲 spectrum. The agree- represent the target ESDU profiles, while data points are measured
ment between the measured and target spectra is reasonable, al- experimental values.

100 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2010

J. Struct. Eng. 2010.136:98-105.

 Table 2. Details Pertaining to Data Acquisition
Parameter Load cell tests
Eave heights, H 3.7, 6.1, 9.1 m
Gable roof slope 2:12
Terrain roughness, zo 0.05 m 共0.2 ft兲
Wind angles 共degrees兲a 0°–180° in 10° increments
Sampling frequency 400 Hz
Low-pass filter cut-off frequency 10–20 Hz
Sampling time 100–250 s
Reference wind tunnel speedb 7.6–18.3 m/s
Model scale 1:100
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 12/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Velocity scale 1:7 to 1:3
Time scale 1: 0.030 to 1: 0.070
a
See Fig. 1 for the definition of wind angle.
b
Actual wind tunnel speed varied within 5% of the nominal reference
level speed. Load coefficients were normalized using the actual wind
speed measured during the run.
measured. The sign convention is depicted in Fig. 1. The data
were sampled at a rate of 400 Hz, but digitally low-pass filtered in
the range of 10–20 Hz, depending on the configuration. As well,
the model resonant frequencies fell within measurement range
and were band-pass filtered. The load cell experiments were chal-
lenging since the peak loads depend on the configuration, requir-
ing each configuration to be run at a different wind tunnel speed
to maximize the range used on the transducers to minimize ex-
perimental, measurement uncertainty. Thus, in order to ensure
accurate measurements, the wind tunnel speed was altered for
each configuration. This leads to changes in the velocity scale for
each model, which of course alters the time scale, since ␭T
= ␭L / ␭V, where ␭T is the time scale, ␭L is the length scale, and ␭V
is the velocity scale. The ranges of velocity and time scales are
given in Table 2, with the time scales varying in such a way that
the equivalent full-scale sampling period was held to 1 h.
The maximum blockage ratio 共i.e., ratio of blocked area to
total wind tunnel cross-sectional area兲 for the models was in con-
figurations 10, 14, and 18 and was about 0.2%. The minimum
Reynolds number, based on the eave height H was 20,000. Full-
scale Reynolds numbers would be larger by the length scale mul-
tiplied by the velocity scale, so the present experiments are about
three orders of magnitude low. This is consistent with wind tunnel
test procedures for low-rise buildings 共ASCE 1999兲 and is not
expected to have a significant impact on overall 共structural兲 loads.
The peak load coefficients presented in the study are not the
absolute worst coefficients recorded within the sample time, but
are formed peaks using a peak factor such that

= C + gC
 the 21.3-m wide frame. These results are for the minimum solid-
C Sx Sx Sx 共1兲
where the “^” indicates the peak value; the overbar is the mean;
the “ ⬃ ” = standard deviation; and g = suitable peak factor. Given
the variable velocity scales that were required to obtain the data,
this is deemed a more reliable and consistent way to handle the
data. Throughout this work, a value of g = 3.8 has been assumed.
The peak factor of 3.8 used in the formed coefficients is de-
rived from the theoretical result first developed by Davenport
共1964兲. Using a peak factor provides an average value of the peak
forces, which is appropriate for design coefficients. The theoreti-
cal value of the peak factor ranges from 3.5 to 4.0 depending on
the rate of fluctuations in the load. The value used in this study is
judged to be appropriate for this class of structure and wind flow
field.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2010 / 101
J. Struct. Eng. 2010.136:98-105.
Definition of Load Coefficients
The base shear 共drag兲 coefficient is defined as
Sx
CSx = 1 共2兲
2 ␳V 2
HA o
where VH = the mean 共1 h兲 wind speed at the eave height and Ao
= the blocked area. Table 1 lists Ao for each configuration. One
could also define the base shear coefficient with the actual total
area enclosed by the end frame 共i.e., the total area of the end wall
if it were present兲; this coefficient is CSx · ␸, where ␸ = Ao / A is the
solidity ratio.
The horizontal component of the bracing force is normalized
in the same way such that
Bx
CBx = 1 共3兲
2 ␳VHAo
2
These force coefficients can be used with the ASCE 7-05 once
they have been converted to that format. Following the analysis of
St. Pierre et al. 共2005兲 and Kopp et al. 共2005兲, the wind tunnel
load coefficients can be converted to equivalent GC p values as

A
q HC Sx o

共GCp兲eq = = FwtC Sx 共4兲
q10 m,3 s ztKhKdIAo
K
where 共GC p兲eq=equivalent wind tunnel pressure coefficient;
qH=wind pressure at the eave height; q10 m,3 s=basic wind pres-
sure in ASCE 7-05; Kzt=topographic factor; Kh converts the wind
pressure to eave height; Kd=directionality factor; and
I=importance factor. The factors Kzt and I were set to unity. Kd
was also set to unity since worst coefficients are considered in this
analysis. Thus, all peak load coefficients in this report can be
converted to 共GC p兲eq by multiplying by Fwt. One can then use
ASCE 7-05 formulation together with the current measured coef-
ficients for design.
Results and Discussion
Basic Aerodynamics
Fig. 4 shows the mean CSx and standard deviation C  of the base
Sx
shear in the x-direction 共normal to main axis of the frames兲 for
nine configurations versus wind angle in order to get a basic
understanding of the aerodynamic load coefficients. Recall that
Table 1 lists the configuration details, but that Configurations 1–3
are for the W = 12.2-m wide frame, Configurations 4–6 are for the
W = 30.5-m wide frame and Configurations 8, 12, and 16 are for
ity tested for each of these frames. Several observations can be
made.
First, the worst wind angle for all configurations is between
0°–40° with 20°–30° typically yielding slightly higher load coef-
ficients. The reason for this is the combination of the mean load
coefficients 共which contribute roughly 1/2 of the peak load coef-
ficients兲 and the fluctuations, both of which tend to be highest for
winds from 20°–30°. The mean values go through values of 0 at
90°, as they should, while the RMS 关we use RMS 共for root-mean-
square兲 to denote the standard deviation throughout兴 values are
also minimum at 90°. There is a clear similarity in the variation of
the mean and RMS particularly for the critical wind angles.
Second, for all frame sizes, the number of frames is an impor-
tant factor since the load is observed to increase monotonically
 10 2.0
24.4m x 38.1m, 1:12, H= 7.3m
24.4m x 38.1m, 3:12, H= 7.3m
8
1.5 12.2m x 19.1m, 1:12, H= 3.7m
48.8m x 76.2m, 1:12, H= 12.2m
6


 1.0
4


0.5
2

0 0.0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
(a) win d an g le (d e g re e s )
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 12/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-0.5
2.5 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

w ind
nd ang
ngle (degr ees)
2.0
Fig. 6. Peak base shear coefficients from the NIST aerodynamic
1.5 database for enclosed, low-rise buildings




1.0

0.5
tested, only two frame sizes have the same solidity ratio so that
0.0
one has to infer the effects of frame size at slightly different
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 solidity ratios. Nevertheless, the effects of the frame size are
(b) win d an g le (d e g re e s ) clearly observed and the largest load coefficients are observed for
W=12.2m; 9 frames W=12.2m; 6 frames the smallest frames. This is an important observation since it im-
W=12.2m; 3 frames W=30.5m; 9 frames plies that there would be significant challenges in modeling the
W=30.5m; 6 frames W=30.5m, 3 frames loads for this type of building as an open lattice structure for
W=21.3m; 3 frames W=21.3m; 6 frames which it is assumed that horizontal forces are added up over the
W=21.3m; 9 frames
blocked areas using drag coefficients and shielding factors.
Fig. 4. Effects of wind angle on base shear coefficients in the There does not appear to be an easy explanation for this be-
x-direction for low solidity frames: 共a兲 mean; 共b兲 RMS coefficients havior, but it does appear to be consistent with drag on enclosed
buildings 共e.g., Nywening 2006兲 which may be due to the rela-
tively larger end effects on the surface pressures for smaller build-
with the number of frames. Third, for a constant number of ings. This immediately suggests that an empirical load model
frames, the size of the frame is also an important factor, with the based on enclosed low-rise buildings holds some promise. To
smallest frames having the largest load coefficients 共although this examine this further, Fig. 6 shows an analysis of
C for enclosed Sx
effect is skewed slightly by the fact that the solidity ratio is not buildings from the NIST aerodynamic database 共Ho et al. 2005;
held constant in this data兲. These points will be examined in Nywening 2006兲. These data exhibit the same characteristics as
greater detail below.
the open-frame buildings in a few ways. First, the worst wind
direction is in the range of 0° to ⫾ 30°. Second, there is a clear
Effects of Building „Frame… Size trend of the largest buildings having the smallest load coefficients.

for models with For example, the largest C
for the W = 12.2 m and H = 3.7 m
Fig. 5 shows the peak, formed coefficients C Sx
Sx
six frames as a function of frame width. For the configurations enclosed building is 2.0, while for the W = 24.4 m and H
= 7.3 m building it is 1.7. From the pressure data analyzed in
Nywening 共2006兲, it appears that this is due to relatively larger
14 three-dimensional effects around the edges of the smaller build-
W= 12.2m
ings. These measured values will be compared to the current
12
W= 21.3m
共open frame兲 coefficients in greater detail in the following sub-
0 degrees
10 10 degrees section.


 W= 30.5m
W= 21.3m
20 degrees It is interesting to compare the ratios of

C for the different
Sx
8 30 degrees

兩
sized buildings 共i.e., C

Sx W=12.2 m / CSx 兩W=21.3 m兲, as they are rela-
6 tively constant for any two building sizes, regardless of the num-
ber of frames. In fact, the ratio C
兩
兩
/C is
Sx W=12.2 m Sx W=21.3 m
4
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
between 1.3 and 1.4 for three, six, and nine frames. In addition,

兩

so
solidit y rat io the ratio C Sx W=30.5 m / CSx 兩W=21.3 m is between 0.7 and 0.8 for
three, six, and nine frames. This has significant consequences for
Fig. 5. Effects of building width W on the peak base shear for a a load model because it means that individual parameters for
building length of six frames as a function of solidity ratio 共Configu- frame size and number of frames 共building length兲 are indepen-
rations 2, 5, 11, and 12兲 dent.

102 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2010

J. Struct. Eng. 2010.136:98-105.

 4.0
3.5 10 degrees
20 degrees
3.0
30 degrees
2.5 enclosed building


2.0

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 (a)
solidit y rat io
so
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 12/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Effect of solidity ratio on peak, formed base shear coefficients

normalized by the actual end wall area for six-frame W = 21.3 m
buildings 共Configurations 11–14兲

Effects of Solidity Ratio

Four solidity ratios were examined with the W = 21.3 m frame for
each of three, six, and nine frames. The peak coefficients for
buildings with six frames are summarized in Fig. 7 for the critical
wind angles since similar results are obtained for the cases of (b)
three and nine frames. The solidity ratio has a clear effect on the
load coefficients with higher coefficients for lower solidity, as Fig. 8. Peak base shear coefficients for W = 21.3 m as a function of
would be expected. These results show similar behavior as has the number of frames for 共a兲 ␸ = 0.16 共Configurations 7, 11, and 15兲;
been observed for lattice tower coefficients 关e.g., Bayar 共1986兲 共b兲 ␸ = 1.0 共Configurations 10, 14, and 18兲
and Mara 共2007兲兴, although the magnitudes are very different.
Fig. 7 depicts the peak coefficients multiplied by the solidity ratio
so that the relative loading between different solidity ratios can be variation with the gable ends or entire end walls in place leads to
compared. Clearly, the total load increases monotonically with different variation, perhaps due to changes in the flow through the
solidity. building because of the large blockage at the ends. Fig. 8共b兲
Fig. 7 also includes the enclosed building base shear coeffi- shows that the asymptotic behavior for entire end walls either has
cient for a building that is of similar size and shape 共W not been achieved or the variation is something other than linear,
= 24.4 m, H = 7.3 m, and the equivalent of six frames, or five at least in the range of variables tested here.
bays each 7.6-m long兲 from the NIST database. Comparing the
current open-frame building loads with those for the completely Bracing Loads
enclosed building, it is clear that open-frame buildings with solid
end walls have loads which are about twice that of the analogous Fig. 9 depicts the ratio of the horizontal component
Bx of the
enclosed building. This is because, for wind from 20°–30°, the measured axial bracing force to the total base shear S
x as a func-
inside of the leeward wall is exposed to the wind, so there are two
additional loaded surfaces 共the interior windward and leeward tion of the solidity ratio. While it is quite clear that

Bx /

Sx is not a
wall surfaces兲, compared to the enclosed building case. It is also function of solidity ratio, an argument could perhaps be made that
observed that for the case with only the gable ends filled in 共␸ it is a function of building size. However, given the variation
= 0.35兲, the load coefficients are about the same as for the en- from configuration to configuration, best exhibited for the frame
closed building. Even for ␸ = 0.16, the load coefficients are simi-
lar to the enclosed building. Thus, open-frame buildings
experience significant drag due to the wind impinging on the
frames, and this load is of comparable magnitude to that for en-
closed buildings.

Effects of Number of Frames

Fig. 8 depicts a selection of the peak base shear coefficients C

Sx
for different numbers of frames, for two solidity ratios. For solid-
ity ratios due only to the frame dimensions 共Configurations 7, 11,
and 15兲, the loads increase linearly with number of frames in the
range tested 共three to nine frames兲. This can be seen in Fig. 8共a兲.
This would likely continue for larger numbers of frames, but not
likely for fewer. For one, or even two frames, one would not
expect this linear behavior due to relative changes in shielding of
the different members, but it appears that three frames are suffi- Fig. 9. Ratio of peak horizontal bracing force to peak total base shear
cient for this asymptotic behavior to occur. In contrast, linear as a function of solidity ratio

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2010 / 103

J. Struct. Eng. 2010.136:98-105.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 12/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Solidity factor Ks as a function of solidity ratio ␸ and num-
ber of frames, for W = 21.3 m. The lines are obtained via Eq. 共9兲.
size W = 21.3 m, for which most of the testing was done,
Bx /

Sx is
in the range of 0.5 to 0.75, with an overall average value for all
configurations over the critical wind angle range of 0.6. Thus, the
bracing takes roughly 1/2 to 3/4 of the total horizontal load in the
x-direction 共perpendicular to the pinned frames兲.
Empirical Model for Base Shear Perpendicular
to Frames
The major parameters which affect the wind-induced base shear
loads on low-rise, open-frame buildings in the direction perpen-
dicular to the frames are frame size 共width and height兲, number of
frames, and solidity ratio. Analysis of the variations of the load
coefficients holding any two of these parameters constant and
varying the third suggests that multiplicative factors accounting
for the load effects of these parameters would lead to a reasonable
loading model. In addition, both the magnitude of the loads and
the aerodynamic behavior appear to have more in common with
enclosed low-rise buildings than with open lattice structures such
as electrical power transmission towers. Therefore, using en-
closed building drag loads is a reasonable starting point for con-
structing a load/design model for open-frame, low-rise buildings.
The ASCE 7-05 defines the pressure loads due to wind as
p = 共GCp兲q10KztKdKhI 共5兲
where GCp = pressure coefficient appropriate to the building type
and size; q10 = design wind pressure; Kzt = topographic factor; Kd
= wind directionality factor; Kh = velocity pressure exposure factor
evaluated at the mean roof height; and I = importance factor. For
the current building shapes and sizes, Fig. 6–10 in ASCE 7-05
defines GCp values, with coefficients from the end walls, parallel
to the ridge being appropriate. Then, the total base shear 共parallel
to the ridge兲 for the enclosed building is


Sx = 共pwindward − pleeward兲A 共6兲
where A = area of the entire end wall; pwindward = average pressure
on the windward end wall; and pleeward = average pressure on the
leeward end wall. To modify this for open-frame buildings, we
introduce two multiplicative factors: Kw, which accounts for
building width effects; and Ks, which accounts for both the solid-
ity ratio and number of frames. These coefficients are applied to
Eq. 共5兲 such that
p = 共GCp兲q10共KztKdKhI兲共KwKs兲 共7兲
with
104 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2010
J. Struct. Eng. 2010.136:98-105.
Table 3. Ratios of Peak Base Shears as a Function of Building Width
W 共m兲
兩 /C
C
兩
Sx W Sx 21.3 m
12.2 1.4
21.3 1.0
30.5 0.8
Kw = 再 1.8 − 0.010W, for 6.1 m ⬍ W ⬍ 30.5 m
0.8, for W ⱖ 30.5 m
冎 共8兲
and
Ks = 0.2 + 0.073共n − 3兲 + 0.4 exp共1.5␸兲 共9兲
where n = number of frames and ␸ = solidity ratio. These design
loads apply only to the base shear parallel to the ridge and per-
pendicular to the frames for winds in the range 0°–45°. Using the
loads defined by Eqs. 共7兲–共9兲, it is recommended that 75% of the
total base shear 共drag兲

Sx be used as the basis for the design of the
bracing members. The justification for Eqs. 共8兲 and 共9兲 are given
below.
The frame width factor Kw is defined to account for the effects
of frame or building width that are observed in the current experi-
mental data 共e.g., Fig. 5兲. This term is needed since such effects
are not currently accounted for in the ASCE 7 for enclosed build-
ings. For enclosed buildings, the edge effects are accounted for by
the length of the edge zone a which has the same proportion of
wall area for all three frame widths so that the net shear in the
x-direction is the same. Interestingly, there are building width
effects noted for the enclosed buildings in the NIST database, as
can be seen in Fig. 6, but these are not to the same extent as
observed for the open buildings and they are not accounted for in
the code either. Table 3 indicates the ratio of the peak base shears
for the three widths in the current study, relative to the measure-
ments for W = 21.3 m, which was the case for which most of our
measurements were taken. Given that this variation is not ac-
counted for in ASCE 7-05, choosing the magnitude of Kw is not
straightforward since it involves making a detailed comparison of
the loads for different sized enclosed structures and then compar-
ing this with the code provisions. Such an analysis was performed
by St. Pierre et al. 共2005兲 using a portion of the NIST database
and comparing with the original source data for the current low-
rise wind load provisions 关e.g., Stathopoulos 共1979兲兴, as well as
with the current ASCE 7 coefficients. St. Pierre et al. found that,
in general, the coefficients in the current provisions are low com-
pared to current measurements and analysis. To deal with this, we
made the choice of making Kw a relative coefficient which ac-
counted for the relative variation over the range of buildings
tested. Since the data that went into the code for low-rise build-
ings was based largely around building widths of 20 to 30 m, we
chose to use W = 21.3 m as our reference point, so that Kw = 1 for
W = 21.3 m. Eq. 共8兲 gives the value of the factor as a function of
frame width W where an upper bound is given since it is expected
that for much larger buildings, the effects of the edge will not
further reduce the loads compared to smaller buildings. In the
range of W from ⬃6 to ⬃30 m, a linear variation in Kw matches
the data reasonably well, given the resolution of building widths
that we have. Thus, the magnitude of the overall loading is made
to match the experimental observations using the second coeffi-
cient Ks.
The values of the factor Ks defined by Eq. 共9兲, account for the
variation of loads due to solidity ratio and the number of frames,
as well as enforcing the magnitude to the correct value relative to
 the enclosed building data. Using the current data, we made the
choice of matching to the NIST data for the buildings with W
= 24.4 m and H = 7.3 m 共with roof slopes of 1:12 and 3:12兲 since
this data has been significantly analyzed 共St. Pierre et al. 2005兲, is
widely accessible, and was obtained in a manner consistent with
the current experiments. Fig. 10 depicts both the experimental
data and Eq. 共9兲 applied for three, six, and nine frames. Eq. 共9兲
was not developed as a curve fit through the experimental data,
but is rather a formulation with a rather simple functional depen-
dence which envelopes the experimental data. The equation can
be used for n ⬎ 9, but for n ⬍ 3, the values for n = 3 should be
used.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 12/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conclusions
The objectives of the present study were to determine the total
base shear and bracing loads in the direction normal to the frames
共parallel to the ridge兲 for open-frame buildings and develop an
appropriate empirical model for use in design. In total, 18 con-
figurations consisting of three different frame sizes in the range of
widths from 12 to 30 m and heights from 3.6 to 9.1 m, with
buildings consisting of three, six, and nine frames for several
solidity ratios were examined in an open country terrain at a scale
of 1:100.
The main conclusions of the work are:
1. The worst wind angle for all configurations is between
0°–40° with 20°–30° typically yielding slightly higher load
coefficients.
2. The largest load coefficients are observed for the smallest
frames. This is consistent with observations on enclosed
buildings where it is due to the relatively larger influence of
edge effects for the smaller buildings. This contrasts with
observations for open, lattice structures and indicates that a
load model based on low-rise enclosed buildings is appropri-
ate for design.
3. The solidity ratio has a clear effect on the load coefficients
with higher coefficients for lower solidity 共with the drag
forces normalized by the blocked area of the end frame兲.
These results are similar in behavior to lattice tower coeffi-
cients, although the magnitudes are different. When these
coefficients are multiplied by the solidity ratio so that they
can be directly compared to enclosed building coefficients, it
is evident that the total load increases monotonically with
solidity and are of similar order of magnitude as enclosed
buildings.
4. For open-frame buildings with entirely filled-in end walls,
the total base shear is about twice that observed for a similar
enclosed building due to the additional exposed surfaces 共end
walls兲 for the open building. Buildings with solidity ratios of
about 0.16 have similar base shears 共perpendicular to frames兲
as enclosed buildings.
5. Loads increase linearly with number of frames 共except per-
haps for the case of the filled in end walls兲.
6. The ratio of the horizontal component of the bracing force to
the base shear is in the range of 50 to 75% of the total
horizontal load.
An empirical load model for use in design was developed
based on the ASCE 7-05 model for loads on enclosed, low-rise,
gable roof buildings. Two additional coefficients were required
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2010 / 105
J. Struct. Eng. 2010.136:98-105.
for this model over what is used for enclosed buildings in order to
capture the effects of frame 共building兲 width Kw and solidity ratio,
together with the number of frames Ks.
Acknowledgments
The writers gratefully acknowledge the support provided for this
work by the Metal Building Manufacturers Association, and in
particular, many useful discussions with Dr. Lee Shoemaker and
Mr. Scott Russell. G. A. K. gratefully acknowledges the support
provided by the Canada Research Chairs Program.
References
ASCE. 共1999兲. “Wind tunnel studies of buildings and structures.” ASCE
manuals and reports on engineering practice No. 67, ASCE, Reston,
Va.
ASCE. 共2006兲. “Minimum design loads for buildings and other struc-
tures.” ASCE 7-05, Reston, Va.
Bayar, D. C. 共1986兲. “Drag coefficients on latticed towers.” J. Struct.
Eng., 112, 417–430.
Davenport, A. G. 共1964兲. “Note on the distribution of the largest value of
a random fluctuation with application to gust loading.” Proc.- Inst.
Civ. Eng., 28, 187–196.
Engineering Sciences Data Unit 共ESDU兲. 共1974兲. “Characteristics of at-
mospheric turbulence near the ground.” ESDU data item 74031,
ESDU.
Engineering Sciences Data Unit 共ESDU兲. 共1982兲. “Strong winds in the
atmosphere boundary layer. Part 1: Mean-hourly wind speeds.” ESDU
data item 82026, ESDU.
Engineering Sciences Data Unit 共ESDU兲. 共1983兲. “Strong winds in the
atmosphere boundary layer. Part 2: Discrete gust speeds.” ESDU data
item 83045, ESDU.
Georgiou, P. N. 共1979兲. “A study of the wind loads on building frames.”
MESc thesis, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Georgiou, P. N., and Vickery, B. J. 共1979兲. “Wind loads on building
frames.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Wind Engineering, Fort Collins,
Colo., 421–433.
Ho, T. C. E., Surry, D., Morrish, D., and Kopp, G. A. 共2005兲. “The UWO
contribution to the NIST aerodynamic database for wind loads on low
buildings. Part 1: Archiving format and basic aerodynamic data.” J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 93共1兲, 1–30.
Kopp, G. A., Galsworthy, J., and Oh, J. H. 共2008兲. “Wind loads on open-
frame buildings.” Rep. No. BLWT-SS4-2008, Boundary Layer Wind
Tunnel Laboratory 共BLWTL兲, London, Ont.
Kopp, G. A., Mans, C., and Surry, D. 共2005兲. “Wind effects of parapets
on low buildings. Part 2: Structural loads.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aero-
dyn., 93共11兲, 843–855.
Mara, T. 共2007兲, “The effects of multi-directional winds on lattice sec-
tions.” MESc thesis, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Nywening, M. 共2006兲, “The effects of geometry on wind loads of low-
rise buildings.” MESc thesis, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ont.,
Canada.
St. Pierre, L. M., Kopp, G. A., Surry, D., and Ho, T. C. E. 共2005兲. “The
UWO contribution to the NIST aerodynamic database for wind loads
on low buildings. Part 2: Comparison of data with wind load provi-
sions for low buildings.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 93共1兲, 31–59.
Stathopoulos, T. G. 共1979兲, “Turbulent wind action on low rise build-
ings.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada.
Uematsu, Y., Iizumi, E., and Stathopoulos, T. 共2007兲. “Wind force coef-
ficients for designing free-standing canopy roofs.” J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn., 95共9–11兲, 1486–1510.
Uematsu, Y., and Stathopoulos, T. 共2003兲. “Wind loads on free-standing
canopy roofs: A review.” J. Wind Eng., 95, 245–256.