Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Interference effects on wind loads on low-rise hip roof buildings

a,* b
Shakeel Ahmad , Krishen Kumar
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India

Received 27 November 2000; received in revised form 21 May 2001; accepted 30 May 2001

Abstract

The Natural wind in the wind tunnel was simulated at the University of Roorkee (India) on the basis of full/model-scale compari-
son. For this, the Texas Tech University (TTU) building model was fabricated on a geometric scale of 1:50 and tested in the
simulated wind for comparison of the pressures with full-scale values. A hip roof building model (geometric scale 1:50) of plan
dimensions 280 mm×140 mm×58 mm (eave height) with 30° roof slope was selected as the test building (T.B.) so as to examine
interference with a similar building as well as three similar buildings placed on the upstream side at fifteen different locations (Fig.
2). A quadrant portion of the model roof was divided into ten different zones to see the effect of interference at critical roof
positions. Significant effects have been observed.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Low-rise structures; Flow simulation; Pressure coefficients; TTU building; Hip roof; Interference

1. Introduction the general relationship which may exist between wind

Wind loads for various structure designs are
invariably obtained from design Codes and Standards.
The wind load specifications in the design Standards are
generally based on wind tunnel tests carried out on iso-
lated models. However, wind tunnel studies have
revealed that wind loads on buildings in realistic situ-
ations may be considerably different from those meas-
ured on isolated building models due to the presence of
neighbouring structures. The flow induced pressures on
a building may either decrease or increase depending
mainly on the geometry and relative position of these
structures, their orientation with respect to the direction
of flow and the upstream terrain conditions. This effect
is commonly known as interference, which must be
properly assessed. Most studies on low-rise buildings in
recent years have been focused on buildings free of
obstructions in the surroundings. However, most low
buildings are situated in urban areas in close vicinity to
neighbouring buildings and other structures. Studies to
determine the effect of buildings in the immediate vicin-
ity were undertaken early by Bailey et al. [1], who car-
ried out tests on a number of model buildings to study
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 571 701 297.
speed and the distribution of wind pressures over build-
ings of various forms, both under fully exposed con-
ditions and in close proximity to other buildings. Walker
and Roy [21] conducted an experimental study of wind
loads on houses in an urban environment and compared
the case with an isolated building in open terrain. It was
concluded that the mean and peak loads and moments
on the building in question increased. Peterka and Cer-
mak [13] examined the effect of four nearby octagonal
structures on the wind pressure along the circumference
of a central circular structure. It was observed that
adverse effects can be encountered depending on the
relative placement of structures in the approaching wind.
Introducing variations in building geometry may
decrease these effects.
Ho et al. [5] studied the effect of surroundings on
wind loads on flat roof low buildings. They considered
several cases with different types of immediate sur-
roundings, and concluded that with increase in the sur-
rounding obstructions the mean wind pressure acting on
the building decreased (as expected), while unsteady
pressure increased. Pressures on the building exhibited
large variations, thereby pointing towards the possibility
of large variations in building loads.
Holmes [6,7] studied the effect of grouping of houses
in characteristic suburban street patterns. A significant

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 5 7 - 8
1578 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589
increase in the magnitude of the negative roof pressures
occurred when added with one extra half row of houses
was added to each side of an isolated low-set house.
He also concluded that the shielding effect of upwind
buildings is dependent strongly on the ratio of building
spacing to height.
Stathopoulos [15] studied the effect of a tall nearby
building on the wind loading of low buildings (5, 7.5
and 10 m high) with gable roofs in a wind tunnel at
1:250 geometric scale in two different terrain conditions
(a=0.14 and a=0.20). The interfering building size was
38 m×38 m×76 m. The results indicate significant
increase of the pressure coefficients under conditions of
buffeting caused by a tall building. He further concluded
that the complexity of the problem of evaluation of wind
loads on low buildings under buffeting conditions indi-
cates that, with the present state-of-the-art, it would be
extremely difficult to treat this nearby building situation
with any degree of generality. At present, for building
code purposes, this problem could be treated by provid-
ing possible adverse situations and recommending to
seek specialist advice and possibly to perform special
wind tunnel tests.
In a detailed study on the effect of adjacent low-rise
building blocks on wind pressure distributions and heat
loss due to uncontrolled ventilation for a single family
house, Wiren [22] measured the average pressure coef-
ficients for two similar low-rise, sloped roof buildings
in tandem arrangement vis-à-vis a similar isolated build-
ing for different angles of wind attack. It was found that
one house located upwind of the last house had a sig-
nificant effect on the pressures over all building surfaces
at small wind angles. This effect decreased and became
negligible (compared to isolated building values) at
about 30° angle of wind attack for all house surfaces
except the windward façade walls and at about 90° angle
of wind attack for the windward façade walls.
Kumar [10] studied the interference effect on a gable
pitched roof building of a similar building and found that
the effect of interference is maximum when the spacing
between the two buildings is between 0.25 and 0.50 of
the width of the building.
Stathopoulos [16] carried out wind tunnel tests to
examine the effect of the location of trees in the vicinity
of a low-rise building and concluded that pressure coef-
ficients for the building with adjacent trees are generally
lower than those specified by wind standards and codes
of practice. Hussain and Lee [8], Tsutsumiet al. [20] and
Ho et al. [4] also reported the significant effect of sur-
rounding buildings on wind pressures on low-rise build-
ings. Khanduri et al. [9], in their state-of-the-art paper,
have discussed enormous possible interference effects in
low as well as in high rise structures.
Since numerous situations are possible amongst the
possible surroundings for a building or group thereof,
generalization of results for the effect of interference is
difficult. The best that can be expected from more study
is a widened database with possibly some kind of gen-
eralization for different “categories” of situations.
In its extension, a detailed and systematic interference
effect study with various combinations of interfering
buildings on the upstream side on 30° hip roof with large
1.1 m overhang has been attempted in the present study.
30° roof was selected as a test building because it seems
to be frequently used. The probability distributions of
the critical pressures of the corner and the roof ridge taps
and the standard Gaussian density function have been
shown in Fig. 8(a) and (b). In Fig. 8(a) there are moder-
ate deviations from the Gaussian distribution on negative
tail, which indicates a higher probability for the larger
negative pressures and a lower probability for the larger
positive pressures than a Gaussian distribution function
would predict. However, if compared with the roof ridge
tap [Fig. 8(b)] the deviation of probability density distri-
bution from the Gaussian function is much smaller,
which indicates that very high suction at roof corner
occurs than the roof ridge.
1.1. Experimental program
Experiments were carried out in an open circuit wind
tunnel having a test section 15 m long, 2.1 m wide and
2.0 m high at the University of Roorkee (India).
A 30° hip roof model at a geometric scale of 1:50 was
constructed representing a building of 14 m×7 m plan
dimension and having a 2.9 m eave height (Fig. 1) with
a large overhang of 1.1 m. One hundred and twenty-
four taps were arranged on the entire 30° roof. Particular
attention has been paid to the number and positions of
the taps near the hip ridge, roof ridge and roof edge,
from where the air flow may get separated to form a
region of high velocity gradients with high local turbu-
lence and vorticity.
Models were also constructed to allow testing the
effect of a similar building and three similar buildings
upwind of the test building. For the case of a similar
interfering building, the test building was placed in such
a way that the wind direction 0° is normal to the ridge.
Fifteen locations for the interfering building model were
designated on the turntable. The schematic diagram for
the locations of the interfering building model is shown
in Fig. 2. The locations are numbered 1, 2, …, 15. The
centre of the interfering model coincides with the centre
of the grid at each location. For every location of the
interfering building the angle of wind incidence has been
varied from 0° to 90° at an increment of 15° and the
surface pressure over the building roof measured for
each orientation. The observed values of area averaged
mean, peak, rms and design wind pressure coefficients
for each zone of the building have been normalized by
the corresponding value for the stand-alone (isolated)
condition. The result is the Interference Factor (IF).
 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589
Fig. 1. Model configuration and pressure taps location for hip roof.
Design pressure coefficients (Cpq)=peak factor∗rms
value+mean value. The peak factor has been calculated
from time history of pressure record which, is the ratio
of peak value and rms value. The mean value of peak
factor found here was 3. Position of the interfering build-
ing (x, y) is described in terms of distance of the center
of the interfering building from the center of the test
building in longitudinal direction (x), and in transverse
direction (y) in cm.
For the case where the effects of three interfering
buildings were studied, the positions of the interfering
buildings were same as that for a similar building inter-
ference case. Visualizing the innumerable possible dis-
positions of the neighbouring buildings in the real life
situation, different possible combinations of interfering
buildings were arrived at. All the three interfering build-
ings were placed simultaneously at different locations
like 1–5–13, i.e., first building at position 1 second at
1579
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram for interfering building positions.
Fig. 3. Mean velocity profile comparison between full scale and
model scale (TTU data [2]).
position 5 and the third at position 13 as per the grid
numbers marked in Fig. 2.
The building models were fabricated using 6 mm thick
Perspex sheet. Pressure taps 10 mm long, 1.3 mm exter-
nal diameter and 1 mm internal diameter of stainless
steel tubing were inserted into the holes drilled in the
Perspex sheet with one end of the tap flush with the
roof surface.
The tubing for measuring the surface pressures con-
sisted of 500 mm vinyl tubes with a 40 mm restrictor
placed at 400 mm from the pressure point. Pressure
measurements were carried out by using a Scanivalve
ZOC12, a 32-port pressure scanner having a linear
response upto 100 Hz. The sampling rate was kept at
375 samples per second per channel and the duration of
each run was 32 s.
Natural wind was developed for the 1:50 scale hip
1580 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589

Fig. 4. Turbulence intensity profile comparison between full scale Fig. 6. Auto correlation plot at eave height.
and model scale (TTU data [2]).

teristic dimension. The reduced spectra plot is shown in

Fig. 5. The integral scale was also evaluated at model
eave height of the longitudinal wind velocity and found
to be 0.45 m. The auto-correlation plot to find the inte-
gral scale is shown in Fig. 6.
To check the reliability of the data, a 1:50 scale model
of the TTU building (Fig. 7) of plan dimension 13.7
m×9.1 m with eave height 4.0 m, was fabricated and
tested in the simulated flow condition and terrain and
the results were compared with the full scale data. It was
observed that the mean, rms and peak pressures are in
good agreement at all the locations except the peak suc-
tions at the corners. Similar results have been reported
by other investigators [3,11,12,14,17–19].

Fig. 5. Normalized reduced spectrum plot at eave height.

roof model to simulate the wind over open country ter-

rain. The simulation was done on the basis of Texas
Tech University (TTU) full-scale data. The velocity pro-
file and the longitudinal Turbulence intensities obtained
in the tunnel are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The mean longi-
tudinal wind speed profile measured in the wind tunnel
is in good agreement with TTU full-scale profile with a
power law exponent of 0.15. The mean wind velocity
at eave height is 10 m/s. The longitudinal Turbulence
Intensity at the model eave height is 19%, which satisfies
the field condition at eave height. The Small Scale Tur-
bulence Content (S) which is defied as
S=[nSu(n)/s2u][su/U]2×106 evaluated at n=10U/Lp where
n is frequency, Su(n) is spectral density, su is the stan-
dard deviation of the longitudinal mean velocity (U) and
Lp is the characteristic model dimension, is found to be
85. The model eave height has been taken as the charac- Fig. 7. TTU building and its tap locations.
 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589 1581

Fig. 8. Probability density function curve for (a) corner tap and (b) roof ridge tap.

Fig. 9. TTU building, Cpmean, Cprms and Cpmin for roof tap No. 50101.
1582 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589

2. Results and discussion
2.1. Study of TTU building model
2.1.1. Corner roof tap 50101
The observed Cpmean, Cprms and Cpmin have been plot-
ted against angle of wind incidence varying from 0° to
360° and compared with the prototype values. It has
been found that Cpmean and Cprms agree closely with the
prototype values. However, Cpmin does not show a good
match for wind azimuths between 180° and 270° (Fig.
9) but it is well matched with CSU RII flow simulated
values on the same geometric scale. This may be due to
conical vortex formation where separation of the air bub-
ble started. Similar results have also been reported by
others [3,11,12,14,17–19].
2.1.2. Roof tap other than corner tap 50505
Variations of Cpmean, Cprms, Cpmin with angle of wind
incidence are shown in Fig. 10. The values obtained in
the test have been compared with CSU RII flow simu-
lated values and TTU full scale values. Values obtained
in the present study have been found to be in better
agreement with the full-scale values than those of the
CSU RII experiment. The Cpmin has also been found to
match closely with the full-scale values for wind azi-
muths between 180° and 270°.
2.1.3. Wall tap 42206
The variations of Cpmean, Cprms and Cpmin with angle
of wind incidence are shown in Fig. 11. The values have
been compared with the full-scale values and a good
agreement with the prototype values has been found.

Fig. 10. TTU building, Cpmean, Cprms and Cpmin for roof tap No. 50505.
 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589
Fig. 11. TTU building, Cpmean, Cprms and Cpmin for roof tap No. 42206.
2.2. Interference effect on hip roof models
2.2.1. A similar building interference
Both shielding and amplification was observed in the
various wind pressure coefficients (Cp) due to inter-
ference from similar neighbouring building(s). In the
case of interference from a single building, maximum
enhancement in the design pressure coefficients (Cpq)
was observed to be 56% for interfering building position
5 (⫺28, 28) in zone 5 and maximum shielding of 33%
was found to occur for interfering building position 9
(⫺42, 0) in zone 2 of the roof (Fig. 12). Maximum
enhancement of 52% for Cpmin was observed for inter-
fering building position 4 (0, 70) in zone 7 and
maximum shielding of 11% was observed for interfering
building position 9 (⫺42, 0) in zone 2 of the hip roof
(Fig. 13). Maximum amplification for Cprms was 66%
and was found for interfering building position 5 (⫺28,
1583
28) for zone 5 and maximum shielding of 32% was
obtained for position 9 (⫺42, 0) in zone 2 of the roof
(Fig. 14). A maximum increment for Cpmean of 41% was
found for interfering building position 10 (⫺42, 28) in
zone 1 and a maximum shielding of 34% was found for
position 9 (⫺42, 0) in zone 2 of the hip roof (Fig. 15).
The maximum values for Cpmean, Cprms, Cpmin and Cpq in
each zone with the position of interfering building are
given in Tables 1–4.
In summary, for the interference from a single ident-
ical building, the maximum enhancement was found to
vary from zone to zone for different Cps but the
maximum shielding was found to be in zone 2 in most
cases.
2.2.2. Interference from three similar buildings
In the case of interference from three identical build-
ings also, both enhancement and shielding was again
1584 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589

Fig. 12. Interference factor contours for Cpq for zone 2 and zone 5 of a similar building interference (all azimuths).

Fig. 13. Interference factor contours for Cpmean for zone 2 and zone 7 of a similar building interference (all azimuths).

observed (Table 5). For most of the interfering building
positions shielding was observed for the different Cps.
The maximum enhancement for Cpq was found to be
53% for interfering buildings positions 3–12–14 in zone
8 and the maximum shielding of 50% for the same was
observed for building positions 1–9–14 in zone 1.
Maximum amplification for Cpmin was observed to be
73% for interfering buildings positions 3–9–12 in zone
8 and the maximum shielding was found to be 37% for
positions 1–9–14 in zone 1. Maximum enhancement for
Cprms was 61% and was observed for interfering building
positions 3–10–12 in zone 6 and the maximum shielding
was 25% for positions 1–9–14 in zones 1 and 2.
Maximum amplification for Cpmean was 64% and was
found for interfering buildings positions 3–12–14 in
zone 8 whereas maximum shielding of 69% was
 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589 1585

Fig. 14. Interference factor contours for Cprms for zone 2 and zone 5 of a similar building interference (all azimuths).

Fig. 15. Interference factor contours for Cpmean for zone 1 and zone 2 of a similar building interference (all azimuths).

obtained in zone 1 for positions 1–9–14. The maximum
values for Cpmean, Cprms, Cpmin and Cpq in each zone, with
the corresponding positions of interfering buildings are
given in Tables 6–9.
In summary, maximum enhancement in wind press-
ures due to interference from three identical buildings
was observed for zone 8 (IF for Cpmin=1.73 for building
positions 3–9–12) of the hip roof for most of the inter-
fering building positions (in all 11 sets considered) for
different Cps whereas shielding was found to occur for
zone 1 and 2 for all Cps for various interfering building
positions with the maximum shielding for Cpmean
(IF=0.31) observed for zone1 for interfering building
positions 3–5–12.
1586 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589

Table 1 Table 3
Maximum interference factor for Cpq, all azimuths and 30° pitch roof Maximum interference factor for Cprms, all azimuths and 30° pitch roof
(interference with a similar building) (interference with a similar building)

Maximum Location of Maximum Location of

Zone interference interfering building Remarks Zone interfering interfering building Remarks
factor (IF) Na(x, y) factor (IF) Na(x, y)

1 1.46 10 (⫺42, 28) 1 1.47 4 (0, 70)

2 1.11 15 (⫺56, 42) Not significant 2 1.18 15 (⫺56, 42)
3 1.18 6 (⫺28, 42) 3 1.24 6 (⫺28, 42)
4 1.27 1 (0, 28) 4 1.57 5 (⫺28, 28)
5 1.56 5 (⫺28, 28) 5 1.66 5 (⫺28, 28)
6 1.30 10 (⫺42, 28) 6 1.55 10 (⫺42, 28)
7 1.27 8 (⫺28, 70) 7 1.52 4 (0, 70)
8 1.31 6 (⫺28, 42) 8 1.54 4 (0, 70)
9 1.28 5 (⫺28, 28) 9 1.63 3 (0, 56)
10 1.19 15 (⫺56, 42) 10 1.34 10 (⫺42, 28)

Table 2 Table 4
Maximum interference factor for Cpmin, all azimuths and 30° pitch roof Maximum interference factor for Cpmean, all azimuths and 30° pitch
(interference with a similar building) roof (interference with a similar building)

Maximum Location of Maximum Location of

Zone interference interfering building Remarks Zone interference interfering building Remark
factor (IF) Na(x, y) factor (IF) Na(x, y)

1 1.48 15 (⫺56, 42) 1 1.41 10 (⫺42, 28)

2 1.15 15 (⫺56, 42) 2 1.05 4 (0, 70) Not significant
3 1.39 6 (⫺28, 42) 3 1.26 8 (⫺28, 70)
4 1.35 11 (⫺42, 42) 4 1.20 15 (⫺56, 42)
5 1.45 7 (⫺28, 56) 5 1.36 10 (⫺42, 28)
6 1.46 15 (⫺56, 42) 6 1.20 15 9⫺56, 42)
7 1.52 4 (0, 70) 7 1.19 9 (⫺42, 0)
8 1.37 11 (⫺42, 42) 8 1.22 9 (⫺42, 0)
9 1.36 8 (⫺28, 70) 9 1.05 8 (⫺28, 70) Not significant
10 1.24 15 (⫺56, 42) 10 1.12 15 (⫺56, 42) Not significant

3. Conclusion For the case of three interfering buildings, both shield-

Significant enhancement and shielding were observed
for different positions of a single interfering building.
Maximum enhancement was observed in the rms value
of the pressures (IF=1.66 for zone 5 of the roof) while
maximum shielding was seen in the mean value (IF=0.66
for zone 2 of the roof).
ing and enhancement in the pressure coefficients were
also found to occur. However, for most of the interfering
building locations, shielding was observed. Maximum
enhancement was found in Cpmin and was 73%. This
occurred in zone 8. The maximum shielding was 69%
and was found in Cpmean. This occurred in zone 1 of
the roof.
 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589 1587

Table 5
Interference factors for different zones (all azimuths) for Cpmean, Cpmin, Cpq and Cprms due to interference with three similar buildings

Location Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10

Cpmean
1–9–10 0.327 0.439 0.865 0.972 1.045 0.885 0.648 0.791 0.784 0.884
1–9–14 0.313 0.446 0.874 0.981 1.082 0.863 0.642 0.811 0.649 0.895
1–13–14 0.332 0.567 0.878 1.007 1.075 0.871 0.697 0.905 0.724 0.943
2–13–15 0.432 0.588 1.099 1.041 1.095 1.107 0.807 1.013 0.731 1.092
2–11–13 0.398 0.519 1.122 0.883 0.949 0.896 1.203 1.512 0.635 0.935
2–9–11 0.343 0.477 1.166 0.870 0.991 0.914 0.968 1.200 0.720 0.935
3–9–12 0.431 0.533 1.251 0.920 1.029 0.902 0.828 1.029 0.847 0.953
3–12–13 0.453 0.559 1.231 0.955 1.006 0.909 0.851 1.046 0.896 1.025
3–12–14 0.463 0.671 1.071 0.974 1.042 1.188 1.292 1.648 0.708 0.995
3–10–12 0.433 0.620 0.983 0.960 1.032 1.219 0.702 0.903 0.732 0.980
3–5–12 0.491 0.662 0.946 0.951 1.038 1.072 0.754 1.955 0.953 0.945
Cpmin
1–9–10 0.808 0.834 1.013 1.196 1.132 1.051 1.102 1.378 1.238 1.119
1–9–14 0.630 0.809 1.062 1.217 1.180 1.114 1.177 1.248 1.194 1.121
1–13–14 0.696 0.729 0.977 1.091 1.117 1.219 1.110 1.360 1.367 1.150
2–13–15 0.737 0.859 1.538 1.203 1.024 1.125 1.329 1.727 1.424 1.244
2–11–13 0.808 0.798 1.478 1.283 1.153 1.101 1.201 1.383 1.139 1.412
2–9–11 0.781 0.872 1.112 1.298 1.216 1.081 1.084 1.410 1.228 1.227
3–9–12 0.851 0.791 1.208 1.192 1.181 1.183 1.533 1.734 1.432 1.195
3–12–13 0.880 0.791 1.206 1.286 1.091 1.053 1.293 1.499 1.457 1.329
3–12–14 0.802 0.903 1.209 1.198 1.174 1.431 1.214 1.550 1.197 1.269
3–10–12 0.853 0.807 1.192 1.192 1.176 1.888 1.107 1.342 1.310 1.341
3–5–12 0.801 0.751 1.026 1.114 1.219 1.298 1.192 1.266 1.473 1.216
Cpq
1–9–10 0.513 0.662 1.088 1.221 1.155 1.041 0.845 1.017 1.047 1.096
1–9–14 0.502 0.613 1.001 1.220 1.260 0.963 0.824 1.016 1.013 1.049
1–13–14 0.544 0.731 1.003 1.200 1.218 0.972 0.922 1.194 1.020 1.065
2–13–15 0.603 0.733 1.100 1.184 1.148 1.096 0.964 1.234 1.064 1.189
2–11–13 0.542 0.659 1.195 1.067 1.069 0.948 1.056 1.325 0.918 1.052
2–9–11 0.509 0.612 1.207 1.123 1.122 0.935 0.977 1.212 0.969 1.053
3–9–12 0.598 0.640 1.229 1.161 1.140 0.912 1.001 1.215 1.087 1.049
3–12–13 0.602 0.695 1.238 1.123 1.100 0.890 1.023 1.236 1.120 1.147
3–12–14 0.625 0.764 1.140 1.151 1.144 1.270 1.168 1.528 0.885 1.216
3–10–12 0.629 0.737 1.165 1.144 1.157 1.359 0.872 1.124 0.924 1.165
3–5–12 ⫺2.61 0.755 1.130 1.131 1.141 1.225 0.916 1.129 1.190 1.113
Cprms
1–9–10 0.765 0.765 0.889 1.274 1.576 1.295 1.296 1.028 1.248 1.343
1–9–14 0.757 0.757 0.782 1.106 1.561 1.485 1.141 0.994 1.224 1.424
1–13–14 0.832 0.899 1.106 1.477 1.398 1.154 1.131 1.488 1.352 1.219
2–13–15 0.833 0.881 1.099 1.390 1.214 1.145 1.109 1.46 1.441 1.317
2–11–13 0.736 0.801 1.254 1.330 1.221 1.066 0.918 1.144 1.238 1.202
2–9–11 0.734 0.749 1.240 1.483 1.286 1.015 0.985 1.228 1.248 1.202
3–9–12 0.825 0.747 1.206 1.507 1.280 0.977 1.162 1.408 1.359 1.172
3–12–13 0.802 0.833 1.240 1.363 1.218 0.917 1.184 1.428 1.375 1.300
3–12–14 0.844 0.860 1.195 1.402 1.274 1.444 1.053 1.412 1.084 1.496
3–10–12 0.893 0.856 1.316 1.408 1.314 1.611 1.030 1.348 1.140 1.398
3–5–12 0.874 0.850 1.285 1.390 1.274 1.485 1.067 1.304 1.457 1.324
1588 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589

Table 6 Table 9
Maximum interference factor for Cpq, all azimuths and 30° pitch roof Maximum interference factor for Cpmean, all azimuths and 30° pitch
(interference with three similar buildings) roof (interference with three similar buildings)

Maximum Location of Maximum Location of

Zone interference interfering Remarks Zone interference interfering Remarks
factor (IF) buildings factor (IF) buildings

1 0.50 3–5–12 Shielding 1 0.31 3–5–12 Shielding

2 0.61 3–10–12 Shielding 2 0.44 3–12–14 Shielding
3 1.23 3–12–13 3 1.25 3–9–12
4 1.24 3–12–13 4 1.04 2–13–15 Not significant
5 1.26 1–9–14 5 1.09 2–13–15 Not significant
6 1.35 3–10–12 6 1.21 3–10–12
7 1.16 3–12–14 7 1.29 3–12–14
8 1.53 3–12–14 8 1.64 3–12–14
9 1.19 3–5–12 9 0.95 3–5–12 Shielding
10 1.22 3–12–14 10 1.09 2–13–15 Not significant

Table 7
Maximum interference factor for Cpmin, all azimuths and 30° pitch roof
(interference with three similar buildings)
Maximum
Zone interference
factor (IF)
1 0.63
2 0.73
3 1.54
4 1.30
5 1.22
6 1.48
7 1.53
8 1.73
9 1.47
10 1.41
Table 8
Maximum interference factor for Cprms, all azimuths and 30° pitch roof
(interference with three similar buildings)
Maximum
Zone interference
factor (IF)
1 0.75
2 0.75
3 1.31
4 1.51
5 1.57
6 1.61
7 1.29
8 1.43
9 1.45
10 1.49
References
[1] Bailey PA, Vincent NDG. Wind pressures on building including
effects of adjacent buildings. JICE, London 1943;20(8):243–75.
[2] Chok CV. Wind parameters of Texas Tech University field site.
Location of Master of Science thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Texas
interfering Remarks Tech University, 1988.
buildings [3] Cochran LS. Wind tunnel modelling of low-rise structures. PhD
thesis, Colorado State University, 1992.
3–12–13 Shielding [4] Ho TCE, Surry D, Davenport AG. The variability of low-building
3–12–14 Shielding wind loads due to surrounding obstructions. J Wind Eng Ind Aer-
2–13–15 odynam 1990;38:161–70.
2–9–11 [5] Ho TCE, Surry D, Davenport AG. The variability of low-build-
3–5–12 ings wind loads due to surroundings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodynam
3–10–12 1991;8:39–48.
3–9–12 [6] Holmes JD. Wind loads on low-rise buildings—a review. CSIRO
3–9–12 Division of Building Research, Highett, Victoria, Australia, 1983.
3–5–12 [7] Holmes JD. Wind pressures on tropical housing. J Wind Eng Ind
2–11–13 Aerodynam 1994;53:105–23.
[8] Hussain M, Lee BE. A wind tunnel study of the mean pressure
forces acting on a large group of low-rise buildings. J Wind Eng
Ind Aerodynam 1980;6:207–25.
[9] Khanduri AC, Stathopoulos T, Be’dard. Wind induced inter-
ference effects on buildings—a review of the-state-of-the-art. J
Eng Struct 1998;20(7):617–30.
[10] Kumar A. Wind interference amongst low-rise buildings. ME the-
sis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee,
Location of India, 1994.
interfering Remarks [11] Lin JX, Surry D, Tieleman HW. The distribution of pressure near
buildings roof corners of flat roof low building. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodynam
1995;56:235–65.
3–10–12 Shielding [12] Okada H, Young CH. Comparison of wind tunnel and full scale
3–12–14 Shielding pressure measurement tests on Texas Tech. building. J Wind Eng
3–10–12 Ind Aerodynam 1992;41-44:1601–12.
3–9–12 [13] Peterka JA, Cermak JE. Adverse wind loading induced by adjac-
1–9–10 ent buildings. J Structural Division, ASCE 1976;102(ST3):533–
3–10–12 48.
1–9–10 [14] Rofail AW. Full-scale/model scale comparison of wind pressures
3–12–13 on TTU building. In: 9th International Conference on Wind
3–5–12 Engineering, New Delhi, 1995. p. 1055–66.
3–12–14 [15] Stathopoulos T. Adverse wind load on low building due to buf-
feting. J Struct Eng ASCE 1984;110(10):2374–92.
[16] Stathopoulos T. Wind effects on low-buildings shielded by trees.
In: Proc. 1st Europeon African Regional Conference, Guernsey,
1993.
[17] Tieleman HW. Model/full scale comparison of pressures on the
 S. Ahmad, K. Kumar / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 1577–1589
roof of the TTU experimental building. J Wind Eng Ind Aerody-
nam 1996;65:133–42.
[18] Tieleman HW, Hajj MR, Reinhold TA. (1997), Wind tunnel
simulation requirements to assess wind loads on low-rise build-
ings. In: Proc. 2EACWE, Geneva, Italy, 1997. p. 1093–1100.
[19] Tieleman HW, Surry D, Mehta KC. Full/model scale comparison
of surface pressures on Texas Tech. experimental building. J
Wind Eng Ind Aerodynam 1996;61:1–23.
[20] Tsutsumi J, Katayania T, Nishida M. Wind tunnel tests of wind
pressure on regular alinged buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerody-
nam 1992;41-44:1799–810.
1589
[21] Walker GR, Roy RJ. Wind loads on houses in an urban enviorn-
ment. In: Asia Pacific Symposium on wind engineering, Univer-
sity of Roorkee, India, 1985.
[22] Wiren BG. Effect of surrounding buildings on wind pressure dis-
1
tributions Part—I, 1 storey detached houses. Publication bulletin
2
M85: 19, the National Swedish Institute for building research,
1985.