1 

CHAPTER C28

2  WIND LOADS ON BUILDINGS: MAIN WIND FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM

3  (ENVELOPE PROCEDURE)
4 

at
5  The Envelope Procedure is the former “Low-Rise Buildings” provision in Method 2 of ASCE 7-

e LY
05 for the Main Wind Force Resisting System (MWFRS). The provisions are not intended for

rm
6 
7  buildings with arched, barrel, or unusually shaped roofs.The simplified method in this chapter is

lin N
derived from the MWFRS provisions of Method 2 and is intended for simple diaphragm

Fo
8 

er n O
9  buildings up to 60 ft (18.3 m) in height.

10  PART 1: ENCLOSED, AND PARTIALLY ENCLOSED, AND PARTIALLY OPEN LOW-
nd o
11  RISE BUILDINGS
U ati

12  C28.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

t / rm

13  The Envelope Procedure shown withinin Chapter 28 applyapplies to “regular-shaped buildings,”,
ou fo

14  as defined in Chapter 26 and its commentary. For low-rise buildings with non-rectangular plan
15  shapes, such as L, T, and U, with single-level or multi-level roofs, and/or multi-ridge/hip/gable
e In

16  roof systems, it is reasonable for the designer to use Chapter 28, Part 1 provisions and pressure
17  coefficients in conjunction with engineering judgment, unless the Wind Tunnel Procedure of
r
Fo

18  Chapter 31 is utilizedused. When utilizingusing engineering judgment to apply the ASCE 7
19  external pressure coefficients to a low-rise non-rectangular building, the designer should
20  consider the advice of an engineer knowledgeable of wind pressure distribution for location and
application of the external pressure coefficients, as well as guidance available in literature
rik

21 
22  recognized by the applicable building code.
St

23  Most building codes adopted in the United States specifically recognize high-wind design
24  standards, guides, and manuals that include guidance for low-rise buildings with non-rectangular
25  plan shapes, specifically, utilizingusing the so-called“ “Inscribed Structure Method” and
26  “Separate Structures Method”. Examples of such reference documents include ICC 600-2014,

1 
 
 1  Standard for Residential Construction in High-Wind Regions (2014),; AISI S230-19, Standard
2  for Cold Formed Steel Framing (2019);, and the Wood Frame Construction Manual (AWC
3  2018).

4   

5  C28.3 WIND LOADS: MAIN WIND FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM

at
C28.3.1 Design Wind Pressure for Low-Rise Buildings

e LY
6 

rm
7  See commentary to Section C26.10.1 for information related to determining appropriate velocity

lin N
8  pressures. . 

Fo
er n O
9  C28.3.2 Parapets. See commentary to Section C26.10.2.

Loads on Main Wind Force Resisting Systems. The pressure coefficients for the MWFRS are
nd o
10 
basically separated into two categories:
U ati
11 

12  1. Directional Procedure for buildings of all heights (Figure 27.3-1), as specified in
t / rm

13  Chapter 27 for buildings meeting the requirements specified therein; and
14  2. Envelope Procedure for low-rise buildings (Figure 28.3-1), as specified in Chapter 28
ou fo

15  for buildings meeting the requirements specified therein.

e In

16 

17  In generating these coefficients, two distinctly different approaches were used. For the pressure
r
Fo

18  coefficients for buildings of all heights given in Figure 27.3-1, the more traditional approach was
19  followed, and the pressure coefficients reflect the actual loading on each surface of the building
20  as a function of wind direction, namely, winds perpendicular or parallel to the ridge line.
rik

21  For the pressure coefficients for low-rise buildings, however, the values of ( GC pf ) represent

“pseudo” loading conditions that, when applied to the building, envelop the desired structural
St

22 
23  actions (bending moment, shear, thrust) independent of wind direction. To capture all
24  appropriate structural actions, the building must be designed for all wind directions by
25  considering in turn each corner of the building as the windward or reference corner shown in the
26  eight sketches of Figure 28.3-1. At each corner, two load patterns are applied, one for each wind
2 
 
1  direction range. In each case, the roof end zone will remain at the end of the building that is
2  perpendicular to the ridge line. The end zone creates the required structural actions in the end
3  frame or bracing. There are two Load Cases with four Basic Scenarios for each case. Note also
4  that for all roof slopes, all eight load cases scenarios must be considered individually to
5  determine the critical loading for a given structural assemblage or component thereof. See
6  (Figure C28.3-1).

at
e LY
rm
lin N
Fo
er n O
nd o
U ati
t / rm
ou fo
e In
r
Fo
St
rik

3 
 
 1 

 
St Fo
rik r
e In
ou fo
t / rm
U ati
nd o
er n O
lin N
e LY
Fo
rm

4 
 
at
 1  Figure C28.3-1. Illustration of load application in Figure 28.3-1.

2  To develop the appropriate pseudovalues of ( GC pf ), investigators at the University of Western

3  Ontario (Davenport et al. 1978) used an approach that consisted essentially of permitting the
4  building model to rotate in the wind tunnel through a full 360 degrees° while simultaneously
5  monitoring the loading conditions on each of the surfaces (Figure C28.3-1C28.3-2). Both
6  Exposures B and C were both considered. Using influence coefficients for rigid frames, it was

at
7  possible to spatially average and time- average the surface pressures to ascertain the maximum

e LY
8  induced external force components to be resisted. More specifically, the following structural

rm
9  actions were evaluated:

lin N
Fo
1. Total uplift;)]

er n O
10 
11  2. Total horizontal shear;)]
12  3. Bending moment at knees (two-hinged frame);)]
nd o
13  4. Bending moment at knees (three-hinged frame); and)]
U ati
14  5. Bending moment at ridge (two-hinged frame).)]
15 
t / rm
ou fo
e In
r
Fo rik

16 
St

17  Figure C28.3-12. Unsteady wind loads on low buildings for a given wind direction.

18  The next step involved developing sets of pseudopressure coefficients to generate loading
19  conditions that would envelop the maximum induced force components to be resisted for all

5 
 
 1  possible wind directions and exposures. Note, for example, that the wind azimuth producing the
2  maximum bending moment at the knee would not necessarily produce the maximum total uplift.
3  The maximum induced external force components determined for each of the preceding five
4  categories were used to develop the coefficients. The end result was a set of coefficients that
5  represent fictitious loading conditions but that conservatively envelop the maximum induced
6  force components (bending moment, shear, and thrust) to be resisted, independent of wind
7  direction.

at
e LY
8  The original set of coefficients was generated for the framing of conventional pre-engineered

rm
9  buildings, that is, single-story, moment-resisting frames in one of the principal directions and

lin N
10  bracing in the other principal direction. The approach was later extended to single-story,

Fo
er n O
11  moment-resisting frames with interior columns (Kavanagh et al. 1983).

12  Subsequent wind tunnel studies (Isyumov and Case 1995) have shown that the ( GC pf ) values of
nd o
13  Figure 28.3-1 are also applicable to low-rise buildings with structural systems other than
U ati
14  moment-resisting frames. That work examined the instantaneous wind pressures on a low-rise
15  building with a 4:12 pitched gable roof and the resulting wind-induced forces on its MWFRS.
t / rm

16  Two different MWFRSs were evaluated. One consisted of shear walls and roof trusses at
17  different spacings. The other had moment-resisting frames in one direction, positioned at the
ou fo

18  same spacings as the roof trusses, and diagonal wind bracing in the other direction. Wind tunnel
tests were conducted for both Exposures B and C. The findings of this study showed that the (
e In

19 
20  GC pf ) values of Figure 28.3-1 provided satisfactory estimates of the wind forces for both types
r

21  of structural systems. This work confirms the validity of Figure 28.3-1, which reflects the
Fo

22  combined action of wind pressures on different external surfaces of a building and thus takes
23  advantage of spatial averaging.
rik

24  In the original wind tunnel experiments, both Exposure B and Exposure C exposure terrains were
25  checked. In these early experiments, Exposure B did not include nearby buildings. In general, the
St

26  force components, bending moments, and so forth were found comparable in both exposures,
27  although ( GC pf ) values associated with Exposure B terrain would be higher than those for

28  Exposure C terrain because of reduced velocity pressure in Exposure B terrain. The ( GC pf )

29  values given in Figures 28.3-1, 30.3-1, 30.3-2A–C, 30.3-3, 30.3-4, 30.3-5A–B, and 30.3-6 are

6 
 
 1  derived from wind tunnel studies modeled with Exposure C terrain. However, they may also be
2  used in other exposures when the velocity pressure representing the appropriate exposure is used.

3  In comprehensive wind tunnel studies conducted by Ho at the University of Western Ontario

4  (1992), it was determined that when low buildings [(h < 60 ft (h < 18.3 m))] are embedded in
5  suburban terrain (Exposure B, which included nearby buildings), the pressures in most cases are
6  lower than those currently used in existing standards and codes, although the values show a very

at
7  large scatter because of high turbulence and many variables. The results seem to indicate that

e LY
8  some reduction in pressures for buildings located in Exposure B is justified. The Task

rm
9  Committee on Wind Loads believes that it is desirable to design buildings for the exposure

lin N
10  conditions consistent with the exposure designations defined in the standard. In the case of low

Fo
er n O
11  buildings, the effect of the increased intensity of turbulence in rougher terrain (i.e., Exposure B
12  versus C) increases the local pressure coefficients. Beginning in ASCE 7-98, the effect of the
13  increased turbulence intensity on the loads is treated with the truncated profile. Using this
nd o
14  approach, the actual building exposure is used, and the profile truncation corrects for the
U ati
15  underestimate in the loads that would be obtained otherwise.
t / rm

16  Figure 28.3-1 is most appropriate for low buildings with width greater than twice their height and
17  a mean roof height that does not exceed 33 ft (10 m). The original database included low
ou fo

18  buildings with widths no greater than 5 times their eave heights, and eave height did not exceed
19  33 ft (10 m). In the absence of more appropriate data, Figure 28.3-1 may also be used for
e In

20  buildings with mean roof height that does not exceed the least horizontal dimension and is less
than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m). Beyond these extended limits, Figure 27.3-1 should be used.
r

21 
Fo

22  All the research used to develop and refine the low-rise building method for MWFRS loads was
23  done on gable-roofed buildings. In the absence of research on hip-roofed buildings, the
24  committee has developed a rational method of applying Figure 28.3-1 to hip roofs based on its
rik

25  collective experience, intuition, and judgment. This suggested method is presented in Figure
26  C28.3-23.
St

27  ______________________________________________________________________________
28  _______

7 
 
 at
e LY
rm
lin N
1 

Fo
er n O
2  Figure C28.3-3. Illustration of load application for Hhip-roofed low-rise buildings.
nd o
U ati
t / rm
ou fo
e In
r

3 
Fo

4  Notes:

5  1. Adapt the loadings shown in Figure 28.3-1 for hip-roofed buildings as shown above. For
rik

6  a given hip roof pitch, use the roof coefficients from the Case 1 table for both Load Case
7  1 and Load Case 2.
St

8  2. The total horizontal shear shall not be less than that determined by neglecting the wind
9  forces on roof surfaces.
10 

11  FIGURE C28.3-2. Hip-Roofed Low-Rise Buildings

8 
 
 1  Research (Isyumov 1983; Isyumov and Case 2000) indicated that the low-rise method alone
2  underestimates the amount of torsion caused by wind loads (Isyumov 1983, Isyumov and Case
3  2000). In ASCE 7-02, Note 5 wastorsional requirements were added to Figure 28.3-1 to account
4  for this torsional effect. and has been carried forward through subsequent editionsIn ASCE 7-22,
5  the torsional requirements were separated into their own section. The reduction in loading on
6  only 50% of the building results in a torsional load case without an increase in the predicted base
7  shear for the building. This reduction in loading results in equivalent torsion that agrees well

at
e LY
8  with the wind tunnel measurements carried out by Elsharawy et al. (2012, 2015) and

rm
9  Stathopoulos et al. (2013). In general, the provision will have little or no effect on the designs of
MWFRSs that have well-distributed resistance. However, it will affect the design of systems

lin N
10 

Fo
11  with centralized resistance, such as a single core in the center of the building. An illustration of

er n O
12  the intent of the note on two of the eight load patterns is shown in Figure 28.3-12. All eight
13  patterns should be modified in this way as a separate set of load conditions cases in addition to
the eight basic patternsload cases.
nd o
14 
U ati
15  Internal pressure coefficients, ( GC pi ), to be used for loads on MWFRS are given in Table 26.13-

1. The internal pressure load can be critical in one-story, moment-resisting frames and in the top
t / rm

16 
17  story of a building where the MWFRS consists of moment-resisting frames. Loading cases with
positive and negative internal pressures should be considered. The internal pressure load cancels
ou fo

18 
19  out in the determination of total lateral load and base shear. The designer can use judgment in the
e In

20  use of internal pressure loading for the MWFRS of high-rise buildings.
r

21  The edge strip definition was modified following research (Alrawashdeh and Stathopoulos,
Fo

22  2015) (Elsharawy et al. 2014) showing that the definition of dimension “a” in ASCE 7-10 led to
23  unduly large edge strips and end zones for very large buildings.
rik

24  C28.3.4 Parapets

See commentary to Section C27.5.2

St

25 

26  C28.3.46 Minimum Design Wind Loads

9 
 
 1  This section specifies a minimum wind load to be applied horizontally on the entire vertical
2  projection of the building, as shown in Figure C27.1-1. This load case is to be applied as a
3  separate load case in addition to the normal load cases specified in other portions of this chapter.

4  C28.3.57 Horizontal Wind Loads on Open or Partially Enclosed Buildings with Transverse
5  Frames and Pitched Roofs

In 2016, new provisions have beenwere added for wind loads on the longitudinal MWFRS of

at
6 

e LY
7  open or partially enclosed buildings with pitched roofs, as shown in Figure 28.34-33,. based on

rm
8  research at the University of Western Ontario (UWO) (Kopp, Galsworthy, and Oh et al. 2010).

lin N
9  This study examined the shielding effect of these multiple transverse frames for an open-sided

Fo
er n O
10  building that was covered by a roof. The shielding effect adopted in ASCE 7 was conservatively
11  simplified; therefore, the exponential form provided in by Kopp et al., Galsworthy, and Oh is a
12  more accurate and acceptable alternative. Building models consisting of three, six, and nine
nd o
13  frames were evaluated. A building with two frames was not tested. ThereforeFurther, an
U ati
14  extrapolation using n  2 is not necessarily conservative. However, this method can be
15  conservatively used for a building with two frames by using n  3 . Examples of evaluating these
t / rm

16  additional wind forces, are presented ingiven by Shoemaker, Kopp, and Galsworthy et al. (2011).
ou fo

17  The wind loads calculated using Section 28.4.5 are applicable to buildings with open end walls,.
18  end walls with the gable filled with cladding, and with additional end wall cladding; however,
e In

19  the area used is always the total end wall area, A f . The effective solid area of a frame, As , is the
r

20  projected area of any portion of the end wall that would be exposed to the wind.
Fo

21  The measured peak base shear coefficients were used as the basis for the design drag loads in the
22  direction parallel to the ridge (i.e., wind directions in the range 0° to 45 degrees°). These loads
23  include both the effects of both friction drag and pressure drag. However, to put this in a format
rik

24  consistent with ASCE 7-10, it was reasonable to use with the enclosed pseudo load coefficients, (
St

25  GCw ), and then apply factors to account for the parameters that affect the load coefficients on
26  open buildings (i.e., building size, solidity ratio, and number of frames). This method yielded
27  conservative results for all experimental wind tunnel data points. The force from Equation (28.3-
28  3), calibrated to the measured base shear, does not reflect a direct load path from the calculated

10 
 
 1  end wall pressure but is to be used to calculate the longitudinal bracing requirement. For the
2  building configurations evaluated, the University of Western Ontario UWO study showed that
3  the force measured in the bracing was equal to 70% of the total base shear. The remaining base
4  shear was transferred directly at the column bases.

5  The wind tunnel studies used to develop the provisions of Section 28.3.57 did not evaluate the
6  effect of obstructed flow due to materials or objects sheltered by the building. Barring an unusual

at
7  arrangement of materials that could produce a Vventuri effect, it is judged that obstructed flow

e LY
8  would decrease the wind loads on the longitudinal MWFRS. However, as noted in previous

rm
9  studies (Altman 2001, Uematsu and Stathopolous 2003), the roof wind loads are more sensitive

lin N
10  to the effect of obstructed flow.

Fo
er n O
11  The wind load in the transverse direction (perpendicular to the ridge) for this type of open
12  building is a separate loading case and is due to the horizontal pressure from the roof load
nd o
13  calculated using Section 27.3.2, with C N from Figure 27.3-5, and additional pressures acting on
U ati
14  the projected areas of any surfaces exposed to the transverse wind.
t / rm

15  PART 2: ENCLOSED SIMPLE DIAPHRAGM LOW-RISE BUILDINGS

16  This simplified approach of the Envelope Procedure is for the relatively common low-rise (
ou fo

17  h  60 ft [ h  18.3 m ]), regular-shaped, simple diaphragm building case (see definitions for
e In

18  “simple diaphragm building” and “regular-shaped building”) where pressures for the roof and
19  walls can be selected directly from a table. Fig. 28.5-1 provides the design pressures for MWFRS
r
Fo

20  for the specified conditions. Values are provided for enclosed buildings only [ (GC pi )  0.18 ].

21  Horizontal wall pressures are the net sum of the windward and leeward pressures on vertical
22  projection of the wall. Horizontal roof pressures are the net sum of the windward and leeward
rik

23  pressures on vertical projection of the roof. Vertical roof pressures are the net sum of the
24  external and internal pressures on the horizontal projection of the roof.
St

25  Note that for the MWFRS in a diaphragm building, the internal pressure cancels for loads on the
26  walls and for the horizontal component of loads on the roof. This is true because when wind
27  forces are transferred by horizontal diaphragms (e.g., floors and roofs) to the vertical elements of

11 
 
 1  the MWFRS (e.g., shear walls, X-bracing, or moment frames), the collection of wind forces from
2  windward and leeward sides of the building occurs in the horizontal diaphragms. Once
3  transferred into the horizontal diaphragms by the vertically spanning wall systems, the wind
4  forces become a net horizontal wind force that is delivered to the lateral-force-resisting elements
5  of the MWFRS. There should be no structural separations in the diaphragms. Additionally, there
6  should be no girts or other horizontal members that transmit significant wind loads directly to
7  vertical frame members of the MWFRS in the direction under consideration. The equal and

at
e LY
8  opposite internal pressures on the walls cancel each other in the horizontal diaphragm. This

rm
9  simplified approach of the Envelope Procedure combines the windward and leeward pressures
into a net horizontal wind pressure, with the internal pressures canceled.

lin N
10 

Fo
er n O
11  The user is cautioned to consider the precise application of windward and leeward wall loads to
12  members of the roof diaphragm where openings may exist and where particular members, such
13  as drag struts, are designed. The design of the roof members of the MWFRS for vertical loads is
nd o
14  influenced by internal pressures. The maximum uplift, which is controlled by Load Case B, is
U ati
15  produced by a positive internal pressure. At a roof slope of approximately 28° and above, the
16  windward roof pressure becomes positive, and a negative internal pressure used in Load Case 2
t / rm

17  in the table may produce a controlling case. From 25° to 45°, both positive and negative internal
18  pressure cases (Load Cases 1 and 2, respectively) must be checked for the roof.
ou fo

19  For the designer to use this method for the design of the MWFRS, the building must conform to
e In

20  all of the requirements listed in Section 26.8.2; otherwise, the Directional Procedure, Part 1 of
the Envelope Procedure, or the Wind Tunnel Procedure must be used. This method is based on
r

21 
Fo

22  Part 1 of the Envelope Procedure, as shown in Fig. 28.3-1, for a specific group of buildings
23  (simple diaphragm buildings). However, the torsional loading from Fig. 28.3-1 is deemed to be
24  too complicated for a simplified method. The last requirement in Section 28.5.2 prevents the use
rik

25  of this method for buildings with lateral systems that are sensitive to torsional wind loading.

26  Note 5 of Fig. 28.3-1 identifies several building types that are known to be insensitive to torsion
St

27  and may therefore be designed using the provisions of Section 28.5. Additionally, buildings
28  whose lateral resistance in each principal direction is provided by two shear walls, braced
29  frames, or moment frames that are spaced apart a distance not less than 75% of the width of the
30  building measured normal to the orthogonal wind direction, and other building types and element

12 
 
 1  arrangements described in Section 27.5.1 or 27.5.2 are also insensitive to torsion. This property
2  could be demonstrated by designing the building using Part 1 of Chapter 28, Fig. 28.3-1, and
3  showing that the torsion load cases defined in Note 5 do not govern the design of any of the
4  lateral resisting elements. Alternatively, it can be demonstrated within the context of Part 2 of
5  Chapter 28 by defining torsion load cases based on the loads in Fig. 28.5-1 and reducing the
6  pressures on one-half of the building by 75%, as described in Fig. 28.3-1, Note 5. If none of the
7  lateral elements are governed by these torsion cases, then the building can be designed using Part

at
e LY
8  2 of Chapter 28; otherwise, the building must be designed using Part 1 of Chapter 27 or Part 1 of

rm
9  Chapter 28.

lin N
10  Values are tabulated for Exposure B at h  30 ft (9.1 m), and Kzt  1.0 . Multiplying factors are

Fo
er n O
11  provided for other exposures and heights. The following values have been used in preparation of
12  Fig. 28.5-1: h  30 ft (9.1 m), Exposure B, Kz  0.70 , Kd  0.85 , Kzt  1.0 , (GC pi )  0.18
nd o
13  (enclosed building).
U ati
14  Pressure coefficients are from Fig. 28.3-1.
t / rm

15  Wall elements resisting two or more simultaneous wind-induced structural actions (e.g., bending,
16  uplift, or shear) should be designed for the interaction of the wind loads as part of the MWFRS.
ou fo

17  The horizontal loads in Fig. 28.5-1 are the sum of the windward and leeward pressures and are
therefore not applicable as individual wall pressures for the interaction load cases. Design wind
e In

18 

19  pressures, ps for zones A and C, should be multiplied by 0.85 for use on windward walls and
r

20  by 0.70 for use on leeward walls (the plus sign signifies pressures acting toward the wall
Fo

21  surface). For sidewalls, ps for zone C multiplied by 0.65 should be used. These wall elements

22  must also be checked for the various separately acting (not simultaneous) components and
cladding (C&C) load cases.
rik

23 

24  Main wind force resisting roof members spanning at least from the eave to the ridge or
St

25  supporting members spanning at least from the eave to the ridge are not required to be designed
26  for the higher end zone loads. The interior zone loads should be applied because of the
27  enveloped nature of the loads for roof members.

13 
 
 1  REFERENCES

2  AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute). 2019. Standard for cold-formed steel framing:
3  prescriptive method for one and two family dwellings. AISI S230-19. Washington, DC:
4  AISI.
5  Altman, D. R. 2001. Wind uplift forces on roof canopies. Master’s thesis, Department of Civil
6  Engineering, Clemson University, SC.

at
7  Alrawashdeh, H., and T. Stathopoulos. 2015. “Wind pressures on large roofs of low buildings

e LY
8  and wind codes and standards.” J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 147 (December):

rm
9  212−225.

lin N
10  AWC (American Wood Council). 2018. Wood frame construction manual for one- and two-

Fo
er n O
11  family dwellings. Leesburg, VA: AWC.
12  Davenport, A. G., D. Surry, and T. Stathopoulos. 1978. “Wind loads on low-rise buildings.”
13  Final report on Phase III, BLWT-SS4. London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
nd o
14  Elsharawy, M., Alrawashdeh, H., and Stathopoulos, T. (2014) “Wind loading zones for flat
U ati
15  roofs,” Proc., 4th Intl. Structural Specialty Conf., CSCE, Halifax, NS, May 28–31.
Elsharawy, M., K. Galal, and T. Stathopoulos. 2015. “Torsional and shear wind loads on flat-
t / rm

16 
17  roofed buildings.” Eng. Struct. 84 (2): 313–324.
Elsharawy, M., T. Stathopoulos, and K. Galal. 2012. “Wind-induced torsional loads on low
ou fo

18 
19  buildings.” J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 104–106: 40–48. DOI:
e In

20  10.1016/j.jweia.2012.03.011
21  Ho, E. 1992. “Variability of low building wind lands.” PhD thesis, University of Western
r
Fo

22  Ontario, London.

23  ICC (International Code Council). 2014. Standard for residential construction in high-wind
24  regions. ICC 600-2014. Washington, DC: ICC.
25  Isyumov, N. 1983. “Wind induced torque on square and rectangular building shapes.” J. Wind
rik

26  Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 13: 183–186.

St

27  Isyumov, N., and P. Case. 1995. “Evaluation of structural wind loads for low-rise buildings
28  contained in ASCE Standard 7-95.” BLWT-SS17-1995. London: ON: University of
29  Western Ontario.

14 
 
 1  Isyumov, N., and P. C. Case. 2000. “Wind-induced torsional loads and responses of buildings.”
2  In Advanced technology in structural engineering, P. E. Mohamad Elgaaly, ed. Reston,
3  VA: ASCE.
4  Kavanagh, K. T., D. Surry, T. Stathopoulos, and A. G. Davenport. 1983. “Wind loads on low-
5  rise buildings.” Phase IV, BLWT-SS14. London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
6  Kopp, G. A., J. Galsworthy, and J. H. Oh. 2010. “Horizontal wind loads on open-frame low-rise
7  buildings.” J. Struct. Div. 136 (1): 98–105.

at
e LY
8  Shoemaker, W. L., G. A. Kopp, and J. Galsworthy. 2011. “Design of braced frames in open

rm
9  buildings for wind loading.” AISC Eng. J. (3rd quarter): 225–233.
Stathopoulos, T., M. Elsharawy, and K. Galal. 2013. “Wind load combinations including torsion

lin N
10 

Fo
11  for rectangular medium-rise building.” Int. J. High-Rise Bldgs 2 (3): 1–11.

er n O
12  Uematsu, Y., and T. Stathopoulos. 2003. “Wind loads on free-standing canopy roofs: A review.”
13  J. Wind Eng., Japan Assoc. Wind Eng. 95.
nd o
14 
U ati
15  OTHER REFERENCES (NOT CITED)
16  Cook, N. J. 1990. The Designer’s Guide to Wind Loading of Building Structures, Part 1.
t / rm

17  London: Butterworths.

18  Cook, N. J. 1990. The Designer’s Guide to Wind Loading of Building Structures, Part 2: Static
ou fo

19  Structures. London: Butterworths.

20  Krayer, W. R., and R. D. Marshall. 1992. “Gust factors applied to hurricane winds.” Bull. Am.
e In

21  Meteorol. Soc. 73: 613–617.

r
Fo
St
rik

15