Component and Cladding Wind Loads for Soffits Peter J. Vickery, M.ASCE' r Abstract: The wind induced failure of softs of low rise structures isa failure mechanism commonly observed investigations. The failure of the sffits has the potential to allow both wind and water to enter the attic space of the building. The current US national wind loading standard (ASCE 7) provides no guidance as to the wind load requirements forthe design of soffts. In order to address this deficiency, wind tunnel tests on 1:50 seale models of one-, two-, and three-story hip and gable roof buildings were performed ‘where measurements ofthe wind induced pressures and suetions on the soffit, roofs, and walls were obtained. The wind tunnel tests were performed in open and suburban terrain conditions, with end without surrounding buildings in place. The results ofthe tests clearly show that the soft pressures are nearly fully corelated with nearby wal pressures, and a simple and accurate solution to the soffit loading eficiency in ASCE 7 is to preseribe that the component and cladding pressures Cor use in the design of softs be identical to the component and cladding Toads used for the design of wall components DOK: 10.1061/(ASCE)O733-9445(2008)134:5(846) CE Database subject headings: Wind loads; Structural failures; Buildings, low-rise; Walls; Structural design, fated with the wall loads, and much less corelated with the nearby roof loads. Introduction ‘The wind induced failure of soffits of low rise structures is a failure mechanism commonly observed in posthurricane damage investigations. Fig, 1 presents example photographs of soffit dam. age to residential buildings taken following the landfall of Hurri- ccane Charley ip southwest Florida, The failure of the soffits is Wind Tunnel Tests ‘The wind tunnel fests on the 1:50 scale model buildings were performed at the Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory atthe often followed by the intrusion of significant amounts of water into the atic and living spaces of residential buildings (FEMA 2005a,6), bat the curent US national wind loading standard, [ASCE 7 (ASCE 2006) provides no guidance as to the wind load requirements for the design of soffts. Here, we report on the results of wind tunnel tests caried out on 1:50 seale models of simple one-, two, and three-story buildings with hip and gable roofs, Wind induced pressures wero measured on the softs, walls, and roof surfaces for buildings located in stendatd open snd subueban terrains. In most cases, the measurements were por formed for an isolated building situated inthe center of the rota ing tumtable; however, for a few eases, addtional surouadi buildings were mounted on the tartable, The objective of the ind tunnel texts and subsequent data analysis was (0 derive simple, easy to apply rules that ean be readily incorporated into ‘wind loading design standards to address the lake of provisions {or component and cladding loads for softs. Time series of pres- sce measurements on the soffit were correlated ith time series ‘of pressure measurements at nearby roof and wall locations. The resulls ndleate thatthe soffit loads are invariably highly core- TPincipal ngineeg Applied Reseach Associates, Tne, 8540, Coleonade Center De, St. 307, Rakiah, NC 2716. Email prickery@ Note, Associate Raton Kuxtis R. Gurley. Discussion open until Coccber 1, 2008. Separate discussions must be submited for individual papers. To extend de closing date by one month, «writen reqvest mest, be led with the ASCE Managing Hats The manascript fr tis tehnl- Gal neo a ube Foc reviw and posible pableaton on August 30, 12006; approved on July 28, 2007. This technical note is pat of the ournal of Sructural uginering, Vo. 134, No. 5, May 1, 208 ‘@ASCH, ISSN 073-5445720085-846-853/825.00 Fig. 1. Examples of wind induced soffit falures on residential balldings {846 / JOURNAL. OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2008Fig. 2. Photograph of two-story gable model house in the wind tunnel. Large roughness elements required to generate the suburban terran are seen in the background. University of Western Ontatio, in flow conditions designed to approximate standard open terrain and standaed suburban terrain Ge,, ASCE 7 Exposures C and B, respectively). Fig. 2 shows the ‘ovo-story gable roof model inthe wind tunnel for a configuration tested to examine the effects of surrounding buildings on the mea- sured pressures. ‘Mean and Turbulence Intensity Profiles Fig: 3 shows the variation of the modeled mean and turbulence intensity with height resulting from the open terrain and suburban terrain simulation. Shown also in Fig. 3 are the theoretical varia tions of the mean and turbulence intensity with height derived from the BSDU (1982) models for atmospheric turbulence. ‘The comp: -asured and observed mean velocity profiles siven in Fig 3 indicate un acceleration ofthe mean wind over the Tower 10 m associated with the wind leaving the large upstream roughness clements and spproaching the location of the model ‘buildings over a stmoath ferch of approximately 60 m, Additional details describing the development of the scaled atmospheric boundary layer are presented in Kopp et al. (2005) and are not repeated here. ison of the a Pressure Measurements ‘The full scale plan dimensions of the model buildings is length 1=10.36 m (34M) by depth D=9.14 m (Of) with overhangs (Goffis) of 0.51 m (1.67 N) on all sies. The roof is modeled with 24:12 roof slope. The eave heights of the one», two-, and three story buildings are 36m (1181), 6:7 m (22M), and 9.2m {30.2 A), respectively, The model buildings are symmettic about both the x and y axes, requiring thet the wind tunnel tests need only be peeformed for wind dizections of 0 through 90 deg. The ‘model buildings are instrumented with a total of 350 pressure taps for the gable roof building and 356 taps forthe hip roof building, A total of 30 soffit taps are Iocated on the gable building, with five located on each soffit running along the soffits located at the ‘end of each side of the sloped roof section and 10 at cach of the gable ends, A total of 32 soffit taps are used on the hip roof Dullding, with seven soffit taps located along each of the long alls, and nine soffit taps located along each of the short walls. reseuse tap diagrams are given in Figs. 4 and 5 for the gable and hip roof eases, respectively. Wind tunnel tests were performed with a wind speed of 14 m/see (46 ft/sec) measured at a height of 1.6m (5.25 f) above the floor of the wind tunnel, Pressures were sampled at a Suburban Teraln o “yl “To we ee eel i “ z “ ms ® 4 7 z 2, ee etn Penge ay ; i ? elif io i be | wf} — Lhe : ® sit 7 zee = o wore facne o My © 025 os 075 1 128 18 Normalized Wind Speed end Turbulenes Intesity 0 025 05 078 4 128 18 Normalized Wind Speed and Turbulence inten Fig. 3. Normalized meen velocity (open squares) snd turbulence intensity (open triangles) profiles forthe open and subucban terrain srmulations, ESDU profiles (solid lines) given for z, values of 0,02 mm and 0.25 m for open end suburban trains, spectively. Soli horizontal ines represent the cave heights for one., two, and three story buildings. JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE /MAY 2008 887Too kD get sot he ee EE soe ee FEE art atte ieee ee ae eerie isa hgiaHice Hoists 8 este sae ee oo Fig. 4, Pressure tap layout for gable roof building JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASOE/ MAY 2008,ace eee ae eet gL le ale Pes eaeac ee eo (cee ae ae ee eco eg esp gNe a eis he tom fz ste esto Fig, 6. Pressuse tap nyout for hip roof building JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE /MAY 2008 / 849 ee |rate of 400 samples per see fora period of 120 (20-30 min full scale equivalent depending on the design wind speed) sec using system with a pneumatic frequency response flat to approximately 100 He. The pressures were digitally filtered with a cutoff fie- quency of 30 Hz (~3 He fll sal) after the date were collected All pressures are normalized by the mean dynamic pressure mea- sured using a pito-statc ube mounted ata height of 1.6m [80 m (262 2) ful scale] above the oor of the wind tunnel. Teolated building fests were performed for 12 of the 1 cases examined (tres heighis, two roof shapes, and two terrains). For the remaining two eases (2-story gable rot in suburban tern), the test buildings were surrounded with two-story buildings. The two surrounding building cases, denoted “Neighbor A” and “Neighbor B® were studied to examine the effect of nearby build- ings on the pressures. Inthe “Neighbor A" cas, cight neighbor ing buildings were positioned a distance of 2L (clear spacing) apart inthe diretion perpendicular tothe roof ridge line, and IL apart in the dzeetion parallel tothe soot side line. In the “Neigh- bor B' case, eight neighboring buildings were positioned a di tance of 2 (clear spacing) spat in the dieaton perpendicular to the roof ridge line, and Z./2 apart in the diretion parallel to the roof ridge Tine Soffit Wall Load Correlations ‘The correlation between the wall and soffit aps was examined ‘rough a simple comparison of the extreme (maximum or mini- mur) pressures measured at each sofft-wall pair on an angle- by-anple basis, as well as more formally, through the use of a ‘couclation coefficient R dofined as where 02 covariance ofthe pressures measured on the walls nd soflis, @,=standard doviation of tho soft pressure, and ‘o,estondard deviation of the wall pressure. ‘Table I presents the soffit-wall tap pairings used inthe soft- wall pressure correlation analysis. Figs. 6 and 7 present plots showing, the comparisons of the peak postive and negative pre sures, a8 well a plots showing the cumulative distibution of the correation coefticient for each buiding/terain configuration ex- amined, Results ate given for each wind direction sofht-wall pair ‘examined, The comparisons of the minimm and maximum peak pressures axe presented on the same plots, with the regression analysis results (Slope and»? values) piven separately forthe peak positive and negative pressures. The regression statistics given in Figs 6 and 7 show that while both the positive and negative peak soffit pressures ate highly correlated with the wal pressure peaks, this comrlation is stronger inthe case of the positive peaks. Inthe ‘ase ofthe hip roof building (Fig. 6), on average, the peak neg tive pressures on the hip 2oof softs Were only 2 t6 3% lower than tho wall peak negative pressures, whereas, on average, the peak positive soffit pressurs are approximately qual to the peak posi- tive wall pressures The cumulative distibation ofthe coreation ‘coefficient R indicates that in 90% of the cases, the value of R is ‘0.95 or greater. In general, th locations having the lowest values ‘of B are associated with the comer soffit-wall pots (ca, pairs 2107,1110, and 1112708), and those locations with the largest horizontal separations (e.g. pats 1116,711 and 120,712). Fig. 6 suggests that there i a weak tendency forthe cowelation between '850/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE /MAY 2008 Table 1. Soffi- Wall Paes Used in Concaton Analysis Bip roof building Gable roof bailing Soffit ap Wall ep Soft tap wal 1408 a0 2005) m3 ian a2 183 us M413 aa ms 201 iats ais 1607 202 6 901 als 204 102 903 1si2 902 1504 905 1704 90 2012 101s 1812 906 2014 uot 1910 907 2016 1103 2102 30 2101 nog 2308) 1004 2103 1108 2307 105 2105 Lugs: 2305 1005 2107 io 2308 4008 ins 913 2302 1010 inte sis 2s 1010 eos 916 23 ‘01s 104 1001 2a ols 1807 1002 2209 1101 1809 1003 2008, 102 110 1004 1208 708, 1813 1005 1299 7 i) 1007 mu mm m2 08 m3 13 m3. 70 mais ns 1116 7 1302 nS 01 m2 1303 802 1204 73 1305 S04 1206 na 1307 806 1207 ns 1309 807 1210 n6 m1 #02 the wall and soffit pressures to increase with increasing building height Tn the case of the gable roof building, the difference between the wall and sofit peak negative and positive pressures is alittle ‘more than seen in the hip roof ease, where here, the peak negative soffit pressures are, on average, 5% lower than the peak negative wall pressures, bu the peak positive soffit pressures are about 59% higher than the peak positive wall pressures. The cumulative di tribution of the comtelation coefficient R indicates tht there are more cases of low values of R(R<0.8) in the gable roof case than the hip roof case. It ig also noteworthy that the addition of boring buildings inereased the frequency of sofit-wall pairs with low values of R. Fig. 8 presents plots showing the comparisons of the peak positive and negative pressures as well as plots showing the cu- rmulative distribution of the correlation coefficient for the gable roof building case with the side wall and gable end wall soft ‘wall pairs presented separately, but with all bulding/terrain cases combined together. This gure clearly shows that along the side walls the wall-soft pressures are extremely well corelated with the regression analyses of both the peak positive and negative wall and soffit peaks yielding r* values of ~0.99 with slopes of ~1. ‘The minimum value of R is greater than 0:97. The wall-soiit,‘hee ep Bang-Open Torin ‘Hee in Mn euntg ps9 Tran “wo Sepp ung -Seburan Tera raexea aaa “Two te Mp tng Coen ern “tw ay Mp tang open Toran ee? * a te mt ee one Say ip Butang-Subuaan Ter ‘on son tip sets Tea oer tp Bung Opn Tori Fig. 6, Soft and wall pressure comelations for hip roaf buildings JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2008/ 851Fig. 7. So! pressure correlations for gable roof buildings '852/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2008‘Gable Sidewall Som WallPaks ‘Gable Sidowal Some waltPare 4 a5 0 08 ft Sofft Prseures abe ne WalSom-a Pars constion Coticont 0 62 «0d 08 tt Fraction ‘cable End WallSoteWat Pate 450 SormtPressures Fig. os 1 18 Convlaton Coeticiont os Fraction Soft end wall pressure coreltions for gable roof buildings. Side wall and gable end walls examined separately. correlation, while tll very high, is clearly weaker inthe case of the gable end soffit, with the average peak negative soft pres- sure being approximately 7% lower than the corresponding peak negative well pressure. The average positive soffit pressure, on the other hand, is approximately 6% higher than the average wall pressure, It should be noted that the wall taps on the gable ends are located further away from the soffit taps (lower) than those on the side walls, and thus, any vertical pressure gradient that exists over the wall between the locations of the taps and the top of the ‘wall will appear as & lack of correlation. It is not clear how much of the reduced correlation atthe gable ends is associated with the distance between the taps or the more three-dimensional flow that ‘would be expected to occur in this region as compared to the side walls. Conelusions ‘The results of the experimental program clearly indicate that wall and soffit pressures are highly correlated. The high correlation of the soffit-vall loads suggest that the reduction in pressures with increased area forthe softs will be consistent with that which ‘occurs along the walls. The results indicate a simple and accurate solution tothe soffit loading deficiency in ASCE 7 is to preseribe that the component and cladding pressures (both negative and positive) for use in the design of soffits to be identical to the component and cladding loads used for the design of wall ‘components ‘An effective means to include soffit loads within ASCE 7 for buildings with heights less than 60 ft is to add an additional note at the bottom of Figs. G-1B through 6-11D, Fig. 6-12, Fig. 6-13, Fig. 6-14, and Fig. 6-15 stating that “Component and clad- ding for soffits and overhangs shall be designed using the wall ‘pressures given in Fig, 6-11 considering both positive and nege- live pressures.” All figures are those given in ASCE 7-05 (ASCE. 2006). Similay, for buildings with heights greater than 60 2, a simile note atthe bottom of Figure 6-17 stating "Component and cladding for soffits and overhangs shall be designed using the ‘wall pressures given in this figure. Acknowledgments ‘This study was funded by the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Stato Ferm Mutual Insurance Company. ‘The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those ofthe writer. References ASCE, (2006), “Minimom design loads for buildings and other strac- tures” ASCE 7.05, Reston, Va [ESDU, (982). "Strong winds inthe atmospheric boundary layer. Part can hourly wind speed Engineering slences data unit item No. £2026, Landon. FEMA. (20050). “Mitigation assessment team report: Hurricane Chatley in Forde, observations, rezommendations, and technical gaidance.” FEMA Rep, No. 458, FEMA, Washington, D.C. FEMA. (005%). “Mitigation astessment tam report: Huricane Ivan in ‘Alabama and Flori, observations, recommendations, and technical ‘uldance.” REUA Rep, No, 489, FEMA, Washington, D.C. Kopp, G. A. Sumy, Dy and Mans, C. (2005). “Wind effects of parapets ‘on low buildings: Part L Basic aerodynamics," J. Wind, Bog. Ind Aeredyt ( 93), 817-841. JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING @ ASCE /MAY 2008 853,