1 

CHAPTER C30

2  WIND LOADS: COMPONENTS AND CLADDING

3 

4  In developing the set of pressure coefficients applicable for the design of components and

at
5  cladding (C&C) as given in Figures 30.3-1, 30.3-2A–GC, 30.3-3, 30.3-4, 30.3-5A–B, and 30.3-6,

e LY
an envelope approach was followed but using different methods than for the main wind -force

rm
6 
7  resisting system (MWFRS) of Figure 28.3-1. Because of the small effective area that may be

lin N
involved in the design of a particular component (consider, for example, the effective area

Fo
8 

er n O
9  associated with the design of a fastener), the pointwise pressure fluctuations may be highly
10  correlated over the effective area of interest.
nd o
11  Consider the local purlin loads shown in Figure C28.3-1. The approach involved spatial
U ati
12  averaging and time averaging of the point pressures over the effective area transmitting loads to
13  the purlin while the building model was permitted to rotate in the wind tunnel through 360
t / rm

14  degrees°. As the induced localized pressures may also vary widely as a function of the specific
15  location on the building, height above ground level, exposure, and, more importantly, local
ou fo

16  geometric discontinuities and location of the element relative to the boundaries in the building
e In

17  surfaces (e.g., walls, roof lines), these factors were also enveloped in the wind tunnel tests. Thus,
18  for the pressure coefficients given in Figures 30.3-1, 30.3-2A–CG, 30.3-3, 30.3-4, 30.3-5A–B,
r

19  and 30.3-6, the directionality of the wind and influence of exposure have been removed and the
Fo

20  surfaces of the building have been “zoned” to reflect an envelope of the peak pressures possible
21  for a given design application.

For ASCE 7-16, the roof zones and pressure coefficients for Figure 30.3-2A were modified
rik

22 
23  based on the analysis by Kopp and Morrison (2014), which made use of the extensive wind
St

24  tunnel database developed by Ho et al. (2005). St. Pierre et al. (2005) provided an evaluation of
25  this database compared to earlier data by Davenport et al. (1977, 1978) and ASCE 7 (2002),
26  while Ho et al. (2005) compared the data to full-scale field data from Texas Tech University
27  (Mehta and Levitan 1998). All source data used in the study are publicly accessible through the

1 
 
 1  National Institute of Standards and Technology’sNIST website (see, e.g., Main and Fritz 2006).
2  Compared to previous versions of ASCE 7, the pressure coefficients have been increased and are
3  now more consistent with coefficients for buildings higher than 60 ft (18.3 m). Roof zone sizes
4  are also modified from those of earlier versions in order to minimize the increase of pressure
5  coefficients in Zones 1 and 2. The data indicate that for these low-rise buildings, the size of the
6  roof zones depends primarily on the building height, h . A Zone 1 now occurs for large
7  buildings, which accounts for the lower wind loads in the middle of the roof. Zone 3 (roof

at
e LY
8  corner) is an “L” shape, consistent with the shape of Zone 3 for buildings higher than 60 ft (18.3

rm
9  m) and consistent with the wind loading data. Four potential zone configurations based on the

lin N
10  ratios of the smallest and largest building plan dimensions are illustrated in Figure C30-1. In

Fo
11  addition, when the greatest horizontal dimension is less than 0.4h (the building does not

er n O
12  correspond to a typical low-rise building shape), there is a single roof zone (Zone 3). Detailed
13  explanations can be found in Kopp and Morrison (2014).
nd o
14 
U ati
t / rm
ou fo
e In
r
Fo

15 
rik

16  Figure C30-1. Four possible scenarios for roof zones, which depend on the ratios of the least and
17  largest horizontal plan dimensions to the mean roof height h .
St

18 

19  As indicated in the discussion for Figure 28.3-1, the wind tunnel experiments checked both
20  Exposure B and C terrains. Basically, ( GC p ) ) values associated with Exposure B terrain would

2 
 
 1  be higher than those for Exposure C terrain because of reduced velocity pressure in Exposure B
2  terrain. The ( GC p ) values given in Figures 30.3-1, 30.3-2A–CG, 30.3-3, 30.3-4, 30.3-5A–B, and

3  30.3-6 are associated with Exposure C terrain as obtained in the wind tunnel. However, they may
4  also be used for any exposure when the correct velocity pressure representing the appropriate
5  exposure is used. The ( GC p ) values given in Figures 30.3-2A–C are associated with wind tunnel

6  tests performed in both Exposures B and C.

at
e LY
7  For Figure 30.3-2A, the coefficients apply equally to Exposures B and C, based on wind tunnel

rm
8  data that show insignificant differences in ( GC p ) for Exposures B and C. Consequently, the

lin N
9  truncation for K z in Table 30.3-1 of ASCE 7-10 is not required for buildings below 30 ft (9.1

Fo
er n O
10  m), and the lower K z values may be used.

11  The pressure coefficients given in Figure 30.54-1 for buildings with mean height greater than 60
nd o
12  ft (18.3 m) were developed following a similar approach, but the influence of exposure was not
U ati
13  enveloped (Stathopoulos and Dumitrescu-Brulotte 1989). Therefore, exposure
14  categoriesExposure Category B, C, or D may be used with the values of ( GC p ) in Figure 30.54-
t / rm

15  1, as appropriate.
ou fo

16  C30.1 SCOPE

e In

17  C30.1.1 Building Types

r

18  Guidance for determining C f and Af for C&C of structures found in petrochemical and other
Fo

19  industrial facilities that are not otherwise addressed in ASCE 7 can be found in Wind Loads for
20  Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities (ASCE Task Committee on Wind-Induced
21  ForcesASCE 2011). The 2011 edition references ASCE 7-05, and the user needs to make
rik

22  appropriate adjustments where compliance with the ASCE 7-10 standard is required.
St

23  C30.1.5 Air-Permeable Cladding

24  Air-permeable roof or wall claddings allow partial air pressure equalization between their
25  exterior and interior surfaces. Examples include siding, pressure-equalized rain screen walls,

3 
 
 1  shingles, tiles (including modular vegetative roof assemblies), concrete roof pavers, and
2  aggregate roof surfacing.

3  The peak pressure acting across an air-permeable cladding material is dependent on the
4  characteristics of other components or layers of a building envelope assembly. At any given
5  instant, the total net pressure across a building envelope assembly is equal to the sum of the
6  partial pressures across the individual layers, as shown in Figure C30.1-1. However, the

at
7  proportion of the total net pressure borne by each layer varies from instant to instant because of

e LY
8  fluctuations in the external and internal pressures and depends on the porosity and stiffness of

rm
9  each layer, as well as the volumes of the air spaces between the layers. As a result, although

lin N
10  there is load sharing among the various layers, the sum of the peak pressures across the

Fo
er n O
11  individual layers typically exceeds the peak pressure across the entire system. In the absence of
12  detailed information on the division of loads, a simple, conservative approach is to assign the
13  entire differential pressure to each layer designed to carry load.
nd o
U ati
14 
t / rm
ou fo
e In
r
Fo

15 

16 
rik

17  Figure C30.1-1. Distribution of net components and cladding pressure acting on a building
St

18  surface (building envelope) composed of three components (layers).

19 

4 
 
 1  To maximize pressure equalization (reduction) across any cladding system (irrespective of the
2  permeability of the cladding itself), the layer or layers behind the cladding should be

3   Relatively stiff in comparison to the cladding material; and

4   Relatively air-impermeable in comparison to the cladding material.
5 

6  Furthermore, the air space between the cladding and the next adjacent building envelope surface

at
e LY
7  behind the cladding (e.g., the exterior sheathing) should be as small as practicable and

rm
8  compartmentalized to avoid communication or venting between different pressure zones of a

lin N
9  building’s surfaces.

Fo
er n O
10  The design wind pressures derived from Chapter 30 represent the pressure differential between
11  the exterior and interior surfaces of the exterior envelope (wall or roof system). Because of the
12  partial air-pressure equalization provided by air-permeable claddings, the C&C pressures derived
nd o
13  from Chapter 30 can overestimate the load on air-permeable cladding elements. The designer
U ati
14  may elect either to use the loads derived from Chapter 30 or to use loads derived by an approved
15  alternative method. If the designer desires to determine the pressure differential across a specific
t / rm

16  cladding element in combination with other elements comprising a specific building envelope
17  assembly, appropriate pressure measurements should be made on the applicable building
ou fo

18  envelope assembly, or reference should be made to recognized literature (Cheung and Melbourne
e In

19  1986; Haig 1990; Baskaran 1992; SBCCI 1994; Peterka et al. 1997; ASTM 2006, 2007; Kala et
20  al. 2008; Baskaran et al. 2012; Kopp and Gavanski 2012; and Cope et al. 2012) for
r

documentation pertaining to wind loads. Such alternative methods may vary according to a given
Fo

21 
22  cladding product or class of cladding products or assemblies, because each has unique features
23  that affect pressure equalization. It is important to consider the methodology used to determine
24  wind pressure distribution through a multilayered assembly including an air-permeable cladding
rik

25  layer. Recent full-scale wind tunnel tests have shown that an accurate distribution of the wind
pressure in a multilayered exterior wall assembly must account for the spatial and temporal
St

26 
27  (dynamic) fluctuations in wind pressure representative of actual wind flow conditions (Cope et
28  al. 2012). Other factors to consider include the influence of air-flow pathways through the
29  assembly (e.g., openings or penetrations through any given layer) and appropriate methods of
30  enveloping peak pressure coefficients for each layer of a multilayered assembly (e.g., Cope et al.

5 
 
 1  2012) to ensure system reliability and consistency with the characterization of peak pressure
2  coefficients in this standard.

3  Modular Vegetative Roof Assemblies consist of vegetation and other components integrated as
4  a tray. These trays have vertical air gaps (a minimum of 0.25 in. [6.25 mm]) between the module
5  and roofing system and horizontal air gaps between them. These air gaps allow partial air
6  pressure equalization.

at
e LY
7  C30.3 BUILDING TYPES

rm
8  C30.3.1 Conditions

lin N
Fo
er n O
9  For velocity pressure, see commentary, Section C26.10.1.

10  C30.3.2 Design Wind Pressures

nd o
For velocity pressure, see commentary, Section C26.10.1.
U ati
11 

12  Figures 30.3-1 and 30.3-2A–GC. The pressure coefficient values provided in these figures are
t / rm

13  to be used for buildings with a mean roof height of 60 ft (18.3 m) or less. The values were
14  obtained from wind tunnel tests conducted at the University of Western Ontario (Davenport et al.
ou fo

15  1977, 1978; Ho et al. 2005; St. Pierre et al. 2005; Kopp and Morrison 2014; Vickery et al. 2011;
e In

16  Gavanski et al. 2013). The negative roof ( GC p ) values given in these figures are significantly

17  greater (in magnitude) than those given in previous versions (2010 and earlier) but are consistent
r

with those given in by Ho et al. (2005). The ( GC p ) values given in the figures are given in
Fo

18 

19  equation form in Tables C30.3-1 to C30.3-10. Note that the ( GC p ) values given in Figure 30.3-

20  2A–GC are a function of the roof slope. There has been an effort made for ASCE 7-22 to make
rik

21  the graphs and roof zones simpler than thein ASCE 7-16 version. Most of the highest and lowest
22  (GCp) values have not changed except where zones have been merged or where the zones were
St

23  modified to better fit the actual wind tunnel data. The smallest effective wind areas (EWAs) have
24  been truncated at 10 ft2 (0.93 m2). There was not a large amount of wind tunnel data for EWAs
25  smaller than 10 ft2 (0.93 m2) available for the graphs used in ASCE 7-16, and thus, the GCp
26  values for some shapes and slopes hashave been reduced, since the GCp values do not exceed

6 
 
 1  that value established at the 10 ft2 (0.93 m2) cutoff. Some changes have resulted in greater
2  pressures in ASCE 7-22 than in ASCE 7-16; primarily these increases are evident for gable roofs
3  with a slope of 70-2007 to 20 degrees, and Zzones 2 and 3 on hip roofs with a slope of 270-45027
4  to 45 degrees. In order toTo interpolate GCp values for hip roofs with slopes between 270-45027
5  and 45 degrees, the effective wind areas for both slopes must be the same. It is the judgement of
6  the Wwind Lload Ssubcommittee that with small EWA's, there is significant load sharing that
7  occurs between cladding elements, thus distributing the effects of the high localized pressures

at
e LY
8  presented in ASCE 7-16. Some of the characteristics of the values in the figure are as follows:

rm
9  1. The vValues are combined values of ( GC p ). The gGust-effect factors from these

lin N
values should not be separated.;

Fo
10 

er n O
11  2. The vVelocity pressure, q h , evaluated at mean roof height should be used with all

12  values of ( GC p ).;

nd o
13  3. The vValues provided in the figure represent the upper bounds of the most severe
U ati
14  values for any wind direction. The reduced probability that the design wind speed
15  may not occur in the particular direction for which the worst pressure coefficient is
t / rm

16  recorded has not been included in the values shown in the figure.; and
17  4. The wWind tunnel values, as measured, were based on the mean hourly wind speed.
ou fo

18  The vValues provided in the figures are the measured values divided by the 3-second
dynamic gust pressure at mean roof height to adjust for the reduced pressure
e In

19 
20  coefficient values associated with a 3 -s gust speed.
r

21 
Fo

22  Table C30.3-1. Walls for Buildings with h ≤ 60 ft (18.3 m) (Figure 30.3-1).

Positive: Zones 4 and 5 GC

p  1.0 A  10 ft 2
rik

GC p  1.1766  0.1766 log A 10  A  500 ft 2

St

GC p  0.7 A  500 ft 2

Negative: Zone 4 GC p  1.1 A  10 ft 2

7 
 
 GC p  1.2766  0.1766 log A 10  A  500 ft 2

GC p  0.8 A  500 ft 2

Negative: Zone 5 GC p  1.4 A  10 ft 2

GC p  1.7532  0.3532 log A 10  A  500 ft 2

at
GC p  0.8 A  500 ft 2

e LY
rm
1 

lin N
2  Table C30.3-2. Gable Roof, θ ≤ 7° (Figure 30.3-2A).

Fo
er n O
Positive with and without overhang
All zones GC p  0.3 A  10 ft 2
GC p  0.4000  0.1000 log A 10  A  100 ft 2
nd o
GC p  0.2 A  100 ft 2
U ati
Negative without overhang
Zone 1′ GC p  0.9 A  100 ft 2
t / rm

GC p  1.9000  0.5000 log A 100  A  1, 000 ft 2

GC p  1.1766  0.1766 log A A  1, 000 ft 2
ou fo

Zone 1 GC p  1.7 A  10 ft 2
e In

GC p  2.1120  0.4120 log A 10  A  500 ft 2

GC p  1.0 A  500 ft 2
r
Fo

Zone 2 GC p  2.3 A  10 ft 2
GC p  2.8297  0.5297 log A 10  A  500 ft 2
GC p  1.4 A  500 ft 2
rik

Zone 3 GC p  3.2 A  10 ft 2
GC p  4.2595  1.0595log A 10  A  500 ft 2
St

GC p  1.4 A  500 ft 2
Negative with overhang
Zones 1 and 1′ GC p  1.7 A  10 ft 2
GC p  1.8000  0.1000 log A 10  A  100 ft 2

8 
 
 𝐺𝐶 3.3168 0.8584 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐴 100  A  500 ft 2
GC p  1.0 A  500 ft 2
Zone 2 GC p  2.3 A  10 ft 2
GC p  3.0063  0.7063log A 10  A  500 ft 2
GC p  1.1 A  500 ft 2
Zone 3 GC p  3.2 A  10 ft 2
GC p  4.4360  1.2360 log A 10  A  500 ft 2

at
e LY
GC p  1.1 A  500 ft 2

rm
1 

lin N
Table C30.3-3. Gable Roof, 7° < θ ≤ 20° (Figure 30.3-2B).

Fo
2 

er n O
Positive

All zones GCp = 0.6 A ≤ 10 ft2

nd o
GCp = 0.8306 – 0.2306 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2
U ati

GCp = 0.3 A ≥ 200 ft2

t / rm

Negative

Zone 1 GCp = –2.0 A ≤ 10 ft2

ou fo

GCp = –3.0155 + 1.0155 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 300 ft2

e In

GCp = –0.5 A ≥ 300 ft2

r

Zone 2 GCp = –2.7 A ≤ 10 ft2

Fo

GCp = –4.0067 + 1.3066 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

GCp = –1.0 A ≥ 200 ft2

rik

Zone 3 GCp = –3.6 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –5.400 + 1.800 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

St

GCp = –1.8 A ≥ 100 ft2

3 

4  Table C30.3-4. Gable Roofs, 20° < θ ≤ 27° (Figure 30.3-2C).

9 
 
 Positive

All zones GCp = 0.6 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = 0.8306 – 0.2306 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

GCp = 0.3 A ≥ 200 ft2

Negative

at
Zone 1 GCp = –1.5 A ≤ 10 ft2

e LY
GCp = –2.0380 + 0.5380 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

rm
GCp = –0.8 A ≥ 200 ft2

lin N
Fo
Zone 2 GCp = –2.5 A ≤ 10 ft2

er n O
GCp = 3.800 + 1.300 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –1.2 A ≥ 100 ft2

nd o
U ati
Zone 3 GCp = –3.0 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = 4.600 + 1.600 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

t / rm

GCp = –1.4 A ≥ 100 ft2

ou fo

1 

2  Table C30.3-5. Gable Roofs, 27° < θ ≤ 45° (Figure 30.3-2D).

e In

Positive
r
Fo

All zones GCp = 0.9 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = 1.2074 – 0.3074 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

GCp = 0.5 A ≥ 200 ft2

rik

Negative
St

Zone 1 GCp = –1.8 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –2.800 + 1.000 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –0.8 A ≥ 100 ft2

10 
 
 Zone 2 GCp = –2.0 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –2.7686 + 0.76862 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

GCp = –1.0 A ≥ 200 ft2

Zone 3 GCp = –2.5 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –3.6529 + 1.1529 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

GCp = –1.0 A ≥ 200 ft2

at
e LY
1 

rm
lin N
2  Table C30.3-6. Hip Roofs, No Overhang, 7° < θ ≤ 20° (Figure 30.3-2E).

Fo
er n O
Positive

All zones GCp = 0.7 A ≤ 10 ft2

nd o
GCp = 1.100 – 0.400 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2
U ati
GCp = 0.3 A ≥ 100 ft2
t / rm

Negative

Zone 1 GCp = –1.8 A ≤ 10 ft2

ou fo

GCp = –2.5686 + 0.7686 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

e In

GCp = –0.8 A ≥ 200 ft2

Zone 2 GCp = –2.4 A ≤ 10 ft2

r
Fo

GCp = –3.2455 + 0.8455 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

GCp = –1.3 A ≥ 200 ft2

Zone 3 GCp = –2.6 A ≤ 10 ft2

rik

GCp = –3.5224 + 0.9223 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

St

GCp = –1.4 A ≥ 200 ft2

3  Table C30.3-7. Hip Roofs, Overhang, 7  θ  20  (Figure 30.3-2F)

11 
 
 Negative h / B  0.8

Zone 1 (GC p )  2.3 for A  20 ft 2

(GC p )  2.8584  0.4292 log A for 20  A  100 ft 2

(GC p )  2.0 for A  100 ft 2

at
e LY
Zone 2r (GC p )  2.9 for A  10 ft 2

rm
lin N
(GC p )  3.3612  0.4612 log A for 10  A  200 ft 2

Fo
er n O
(GC p )  2.3
nd o for A  200 ft 2

Zones 2e (GC p )  3.1 for A  10 ft 2

U ati

(GC p )  3.6380  0.5380 log A for 10  A  200 ft 2

t / rm

(GC p )  2.4 for A  200 ft 2

ou fo
e In

Zones 3 (GC p )  3.7 for A  10 ft 2

r

(GC p )  5.0835  1.3835log A for 10  A  200 ft 2

Fo

(GC p )  1.9 for A  200 ft 2

rik

Negative h / B  0.5
St

Zone 1 (GC p )  1.8 for A  20 ft 2

(GC p )  1.4277  0.2861log A for 20  A  100 ft 2

12 
 
 (GC p )  2.0 for A  100 ft 2

Zones 2r (GC p )  2.9 for A  10 ft 2

(GC p )  3.3612  0.4612 log A for 10  A  200 ft 2

(GC p )  2.3 for A  200 ft 2

at
e LY
Zones 2e (GC p )  2.3

rm
for A  10 ft 2

lin N
(GC p )  2.4537  0.1537 log A for 10  A  200 ft 2

Fo
er n O
(GC p )  2.1 for A  200 ft 2
nd o
Zone 3 (GC p )  2.9 for A  10 ft 2
U ati

(GC p )  3.8992  0.9992 log A for 10  A  200 ft 2

t / rm

(GC p )  1.6 for A  200 ft 2

ou fo
e In

1 

2  Table C30.3-8. Hip Roofs, 20° < θ ≤ 27° (Figure 30.3-2GF).

r
Fo

Positive

All zones GCp = 0.7 A ≤ 10 ft2

rik

GCp = 1.100 – 0.400 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = 0.3 A ≥ 100 ft2

St

Negative

Zone 1 GCp = –1.4 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –2.000 + 0.600 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

13 
 
 GCp = –0.8 A ≥ 100 ft2

Zones 2 and 3 GCp = –2.0 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –3.000 + 1.000 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –1.0 A ≥ 100 ft2

1 

Table C30.3-9. Hip Roofs, 27  θ  45 𝛉 𝟒𝟓° No Overhang (Figure 30.3-2GH).

at
2 

e LY
Positive

rm
lin N
Zone 1 GCp = 0.7 A ≤ 10 ft2

Fo
er n O
GCp = 1.100 – 0.400 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = 0.3 A ≥ 100 ft2

Negative
nd o
U ati
Zone 1 GCp = –1.5 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –2.300 + 0.800 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

t / rm

GCp = –0.7 A ≥ 100 ft2

ou fo

Zone 2 GCp = –1.8 A ≤ 10 ft2

e In

GCp = –2.800 + 1.000 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –0.8 A ≥ 100 ft2

r
Fo

Zone 3 GCp = –2.4 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –3.800 + 1.400 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –1.0 A ≥ 100 ft2

rik

3  Table C30.3-10. Hip Roofs, 27  θ  45 , Overhang (Figure 30.3-2I)

St

Negative

Zone 1 (GC p )  1.4175  0.0200θ for A 

14 
 
 (GC p )  1.8191  0.0250θ  [0.4016  0.0050θ]log A for 10

(GC p )  0.8950  0.0135θ for A 

Zone 2e (GC p )  0.6000  0.0670θ for A 

 log(280  5θ)(0.0670θ  1) 1  0.0670θ  for 2 

(GC p )  1.6000     log A
 0.301  log(280  5θ) 0.301  log(280  5θ) 

at
e LY
(GC p )  1.6000 for A 

rm
lin N
Zones 2r (GC p )  0.2000  0.0820θ for A 

Fo
er n O
(GC p )  1.2745  0.1261θ  [0.0630θ  1.5373]log A for 5 

(GC p )  1.8000 for A 

nd o
U ati
Zones 3 (GC p )  0.4500  0.1080θ for A 
t / rm

 0.1835θ  3.823 2.25  0.108θ  for

(GC p )   1.8  log A
 log(9  0.135θ)  1.699 log(9  0.135θ)  1.699  9  0.1
ou fo

(GC p )  1.8000 for A 

e In

1 
r
Fo

2  Each C&C element should be designed for the maximum positive and negative pressures
3  (including applicable internal pressures) acting on it. The pressure coefficient values should be
4  determined for each C&C element on the basis of its location on the building and the effective
area for the element. Research (Stathopoulos and Zhu 1988, 1990) indicatesd that the pressure
rik

5 
6  coefficients provided generally apply to facades with architectural features, such as balconies,
St

7  ribs, and various facade façade textures (Stathopoulos and Zhu 1988, 1990).

8  Overhang pressures are determined by adding the appropriate roof coefficient from the graphs
9  shown in Figures 30.3-2A–-G to the adjacent positive wall coefficient from the graph shown in
10  Figure 30.3-1. For example, for the total overhang uplift on an edge zone (Zone 3) of a hip roof

15 
 
 1  with a slope of 270 degrees [GCp = –-2.0 for an EWA of 10 ft2 (0.93 m2)10 ft2], add the adjacent
2  positive wall coefficient to determine the total uplift. The GCp for Zone 4 on the wall is +1.0 for
3  an EWA of 10 ft2 (0.93 m2), so the total uplift has a -3.0 GCp coefficient of –3.0. The positive
4  wall pressure creates a positive or windward pressure on the underside of the overhang. That
5  positive upward pressure is added to the uplift pressure on the upper side of the roof
6  surface.Overhang pressures were determined by adding the effective uplift ( GC p )s implied in

7  ASCE 7-10. These effective uplift ( GC p )s were computed by subtracting the ( GC p ) values

at
e LY
8  given for the roof (no overhang) case from the ( GC p )s given for the overhang case. The

rm
9  additional ( GC p )s are given in Fig. C30.3-1.

lin N
Fo
er n O
10 
nd o
U ati
t / rm
ou fo
e In
r
Fo

11 

12  FIGURE C30.3-1 Effective Incremental ( GC p ) Caused by Overhangs

rik

13  WhileAlthough the smallest EWA shown on any graph is 10 ft2 (0.93 m2), the practitioner may
14  still need to determine what the approximate GCp should be for roof systems (e.g., tile roof) that
St

15  may have EWAs of less than 10 ft2 (0.93 m2). This may be done by extending the sloped portion
16  of the graphed coefficient line up to the required EWA and read the Y-axis for GCp for the
17  reduced EWA, while considering any load- sharing reduction factors from relevant studies or
18  testing.

16 
 
 1  The coefficients for hip roof slopes of 20-27020 to 27 degrees and 45 degrees0 have been
2  modified so that there are the same number of zones with the same EWA limits; therefore, the
3  roof coefficients can now be determined by interpolation for roof slopes between 270 and 45
4  degrees0, eliminating the equations that had been needed to determine the slope before
5  determining the roof GCp coefficients. Both Zones 2 and 3 on a 45-degree0 slope should both be
6  interpolated to Zone 3 on a 27-degree0 slope.

at
7  The following guidance is based on the collective judgment of the Wwind Lload Ccommittee.

e LY
8  For “L-shaped,” “T-shaped,” and other “irregular” shapes, Figure C30.3-2 depicts the roof and

rm
9  wall zones for use with Figures 30.3-1, 30.3-2, 30.3-4, 30.3-5, 30.3-6, 30.4-1, and 30.54-1 for

lin N
10  wind loads on components and claddingC&C of buildings, showing the applicability to buildings

Fo
er n O
11  that are rectangular in plan. To address buildings with nonrectangular plans, Figure C30.3-2 can
12  be used for guidance in applying the requirements. When an outward corner protrudes less than
13  the distance a from the wall, neither Zone 3 nor 5 are required; however, when the outward
nd o
14  protrusion is greater than a , Zones 3 and 5 are required. Reentrant (interior) corners do not
U ati
15  require Zones 3 or 5. For corners that have an included interior angle greater than 135 degrees°,
16  neither Zone 3 nor 5 is required. To determine the length of a , a rectangle which enclosed
t / rm

17  encloses the building is drawn over the building plan. The dimensions of this rectangle are used
18  to determine the horizontal dimensions for the calculation of a .
ou fo

19 
e In
r
Fo
St
rik

17 
 
 at
e LY
rm
lin N
Fo
er n O
nd o
1 
U ati
2  Figure C30.3-2. Plan view of roof and wall zones for component and cladding loads on buildings
with nonrectangular plans.
t / rm

3 

4 
ou fo

5  Figure 30.3-3 washas been updated in the 2022 edition to be consistent with the changes to the
e In

6  flat roof C&C external pressure zones that appeared in the 2016 edition.
r

7  Figures 30.3-4, 30.3-5A, and 30.3-5B. These figures present values of ( GC p ) for the design of
Fo

8  roof C&C for buildings with multispan gable roofs and buildings with monoslope roofs. The
9  coefficients are based on wind tunnel studies (Stathopoulos and Mohammadian 1986, ; Surry and
10  Stathopoulos 1988,; Stathopoulos and Saathoff 1991).
rik

11  Figure 30.3-6. The values of ( GC p ) in this figure are for the design of roof C&C for buildings
St

12  with sawtooth roofs and mean roof height, h , less than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m). Note that the
13  coefficients for corner zones on segment A differ from those coefficients for corner zones on the
14  segments designated as B, C, and D. Also, when the roof angle is less than or equal to 10
15  degrees°, values of ( GC p ) for regular gable roofs (Figure 30.3-2A) are to be used. The

18 
 
 1  coefficients included in Figure 30.3-6 are based on wind tunnel studies reported by Saathoff and
2  Stathopoulos (1992).

3  Figure 30.3-7. This figure for cladding pressures on dome roofs is based on Taylor (1991).
4  Negative pressures are to be applied to the entire surface because they apply along the full arc
5  that is perpendicular to the wind direction and that passes through the top of the dome. Users are
6  cautioned that only three shapes were available to define values in this figure: hD / D  0.5 ,

at
7  f / D  0.5 ; hD / D  0.0 , f / D  0.5 ; and hD / D  0.0 , f / D  0.33 .

e LY
rm
8  Figure 30.3-8. The pressure and force coefficient values in these tables were based on the

lin N
9  pressure and force coefficient values from ANSI A58.1-1982 (1982) and multiplied by 1.2. That

Fo
er n O
10  multiplier was changed from 1.2 to 0.87 in ASCE 7-95 (1998), however,but no substantiation
11  was provided for the change. The multiplier was changed back to 1.2 in ASCE 7-16 (2017) and
12  incorporated into the values in this fFigure. The coefficients specified in these tables are based
nd o
13  on wind tunnel tests conducted under conditions of uniform flow and low turbulence, and their
U ati
14  validity in turbulent boundary-layer flows has yet to be completely established.
t / rm

15  C30.3.2.1 Bottom Horizontal Surface of Elevated Buildings. This section addresses the design
16  wind pressures for the underside of the bottom flat horizontal surface of elevated buildings. The
ou fo

17  elevation of buildings on piers or other supporting structures exposes the underside of the
18  building to airflow and wind pressures, and field observations have shown substantial floor
e In

19  underside cladding loss due to wind. The provisions in this section indicate that (1) the wind
20  pressure coefficients on the bottom horizontal surface are similar in magnitude to those on the
r
Fo

21  roof of the building, (2) roof pressure coefficients are not substantially impacted by elevation
22  height above grade, and (3) these relationships are not as significant, and therefore can be
23  neglected, for buildings elevated less than 2 ft (0.61 m); these match the observations from large-
scale wind tunnel testing (Kim et al. 2020, Abdelfatah et al. 2020). Those tests determined GCp
rik

24 
25  values for both the roof and the bottom horizontal surfaces based on the velocity pressure at
St

26  mean roof height. That reference velocity pressure has been retained in these provisions. An
27  additional provision was introduced for increased positive pressure coefficients on the horizontal
28  building surfaces directly above and adjacent to walls, and within partially enclosed spaces.
29  These areas are illustrated by shaded areas around the small, enclosed room under the primary

19 
 
 1  structure and the area labeled partially enclosed area in the plan view in Figure 30.3-1A. These
2  higher-magnitude positive pressure coefficients are meant to address wind pressure build-up
3  caused by wind flow being restricted by the wall or enclosed area, and are set equal to the
4  pressure coefficients used for the soffits of overhangs. When a building with a flat bottom
5  horizontal surface is situated above a sloped ground, the effective height of elevation above
6  grade, hB, should be taken as the maximum height between the sloped ground and the bottom of
7  the building considering all sides of the building. This approach leads to conservative wind

at
e LY
8  coefficient zones for buildings with h ≤ 60 ft (18.3 m), but does not lead to significant changes in

rm
9  loading.

lin N
10  Figure 30.45-1. The pressure coefficients shown in this figure reflect the results obtained fromof

Fo
er n O
11  comprehensive wind tunnel studies carried out (by Stathopoulos and Dumitrescu-Brulotte
12  (1989). The availability of more-comprehensive wind tunnel data has also allowed a
13  simplification of the zoning for pressure coefficients:; flat roofs are now divided into three
nd o
14  zones,; and walls are represented by two zones.
U ati
15  The external pressure coefficients and zones given in Figure 30.54-1 were established by wind
t / rm

16  tunnel tests on isolated “boxlike” buildings (Akins and Cermak 1975, Peterka and Cermak
17  1975). Boundary-layer wind tunnel tests on high-rise buildings (mostly in downtown city
ou fo

18  centers) have shown thatidentified variations in pressure coefficients and the distribution of
19  pressure on the different building façades are obtained (Templin and Cermak 1978). These
e In

20  variations are caused by building geometry, low attached buildings, nonrectangular cross
sections, setbacks, and sloping surfaces. In addition, sSurrounding buildings also contribute to
r

21 
Fo

22  the variations in pressure. Wind tunnel tests indicate that pressure coefficients are not distributed
23  symmetrically and can give rise to torsional wind loading on the building.

24  Boundary-layer wind tunnel tests that include modeling of surrounding buildings permit the
rik

25  establishment of more exact magnitudes and distributions of ( GC p ) for buildings that are not
St

26  isolated or “boxlike” in shape.

27 

28  PART 1: LOW-RISE BUILDINGS

20 
 
 1 

2  The C&C tables in Fig. 30.4-1 are a tabulation of the pressures on an enclosed, regular, 30-ft-
3  (9.1-m)-high building with a roof as described. The pressures can be modified to a different
4  exposure and height with the same adjustment factors as the MWFRS pressures. For the designer
5  to use Part 2 for the design of the C&C, the building must conform to all five requirements in
6  Section 30.4; otherwise, one of the other procedures specified in Section 30.1.1 must be used.

at
e LY
7  PART 32: BUILDINGS WITH h > 60 ft (18.3 m)

rm
8 

lin N
Fo
er n O
9  In Equation (30.54-1) a velocity pressure term, qi , appears that is defined as the “velocity

10  pressure for internal pressure determination.” The positive internal pressure is dictated by the
11  positive exterior pressure on the windward face at the point where there is an opening. The
nd o
12  positive exterior pressure at the opening is governed by the value of q at the level of the
U ati
13  opening, not q h . For positive internal pressure evaluation, qi may conservatively be evaluated at
t / rm

14  height h (qi = gh) h ( q i  q h ) . For low buildings, this height does not make much difference, but

15  for the example of a 300 ft (91.4 m)tall building in Exposure B with the highest opening at 60 ft
ou fo

16  (18.3 m), the difference between q 3 0 0 and q60 represents a 59% increase in internal pressure.

This increase is unrealistic and represents an unnecessary degree of conservatism. Accordingly,

e In

17 
18  qi  q z for positive internal pressure evaluation in partially enclosed buildings, where height z is
r

19  defined as the level of the highest opening in the building that could affect the positive internal
Fo

20  pressure. For buildings sited in wind-borne debris regions, glazing that is not impact-resistant or
21  protected with an impact-protective system, q i should be treated as an opening.
rik

22  C30.4.2.1 Bottom Horizontal Surface of Elevated Buildings. This section provides guidance
23  for determining design pressures for the bottom flat horizontal surface of elevated buildings with
St

24  h > 60 ft (18.3 m). It follows the logic used to develop main wind force resisting system
25  MWFRS design wind loads for the bottom surface of elevated buildings (see C27.3.1.1), except
26  that the GCp values follow the rules for C&C pressure coefficients and are obtained from Figure
27  30.5-1. As opposedIn contrast to C&C loads for the bottom horizontal surface of low-rise

21 
 
 1  buildings, which use the velocity pressure at mean roof height, these provisions use a velocity
2  pressure at a height equal to the elevation of the bottom surface of the elevated building plus
3  25% of the height of the building above, which is consistent with the provisions of Section
4  27.3.1.1 and as explained and illustrated in Section C27.3.1.1. The provision which calls for
5  increased positive pressure coefficients on the horizontal building surfaces directly above and
6  adjacent to walls, and within partially enclosed spaces, used for low-rise buildings has also been
7  applied forto buildings with h > 60 ft (18.3 m), as explained in Section C30.3.2.1. These areas

at
e LY
8  are illustrated by shaded areas around the small, enclosed room under the primary structure and

rm
9  the area labeled partially enclosed area in the plan view in Figure 30.5-1A. When a building
with a flat bottom horizontal surface is situated above a sloped ground, the effective height of

lin N
10 

Fo
11  elevation above grade, hB, should be taken as the maximum height between the sloped ground

er n O
12  and the bottom of the building considering all sides of the building. This approach is used to
13  ensure conservative velocity pressures for such buildings with h > 60 ft (18.3 m). For buildings
elevated above a parking garage, the height of the elevation of the building is hB, the distance
nd o
14 
U ati
15  between the bottom of the building above, and the top of the parking deck surface below.
16  However, the height used to calculate the reference wind pressure used to determine the
t / rm

17  magnitude of the wind loads should still be based on the height of the bottom surface of the
18  elevated building above grade plus 25% of the height of the building above.
ou fo

19 
e In

20  PART 4: BUILDINGS WITH 60 ft  h  160 ft ( 18.3 m< h  48.8 m ) (SIMPLIFIED)

r
Fo

21  C30.6 BUILDING TYPES

22  This section was added to ASCE 7-10 to cover the common practical case of enclosed buildings
23  up to height h  160 ft ( h  48.8 m ). Table 30.6-2 includes wall and roof pressures for flat roofs
rik

24  ( θ  7 ), gable roofs, hip roofs, monoslope roofs, and mansard roofs. Pressures are derived from
St

25  Fig. 30.5-1 (flat roofs) for h  60 ft ( h  18.3 m ). For flat, gable, hip, monoslope, and mansard
26  roofs with h  60 ft ( h  18.3 m ) and all roof slopes, reference is made to the roof and wall
27  pressures tabulated in Fig. 30.4-1. For hip and gable roofs with h  60 ft ( h  18.3 m ),
28  reference is made to Fig. 30.5-1, Note 6, which permits the use of roof pressure coefficients in

22 
 
 1  Figs. 30.3-2A through 30.3-2I as defined for low-rise buildings for these roof shapes if the
2  appropriate q h is used. Similarly, the roof pressure coefficients in Fig. 30.3-5A and B for

3  monoslope roofs from Part 3 are permitted. Pressures were selected for each zone that
4  encompasses the largest pressure coefficients for the comparable zones from the different roof
5  shapes. Thus, for some cases, the pressures tabulated are conservative in order to maintain

6  simplicity. The ( GC p ) values from these figures were combined with an internal pressure

at
7  coefficient ( 0.18 ) to obtain a net coefficient from which pressures were calculated. The

e LY
8  tabulated pressures are applicable to the entire zone shown in the various figures.

rm
lin N
9  Pressures in Table 30.6-2 are shown for an effective wind area of 10 ft 2 ( 0 .9 3 m 2 ). A reduction

Fo
factor is also shown to obtain pressures for larger effective wind areas. The reduction factors are

er n O
10 
11  based on the graph of external pressure coefficients shown in the figures in Part 3 and are based
12  on the most conservative reduction for each zone from the various figures.
nd o
13  Note that the roof pressures tabulated for buildings with h  60 ft ( h  18.3 m ) in Fig. 30.4-1
U ati
14  are based on h  30 ft ( h  9.1 m ) and Exposure B. An adjustment factor λ is applied to the
t / rm

15  tabulated pressures for other heights and exposures. The tabulated pressures in Table 30.6-2 are
16  based on Exposure C. An adjustment factor (EAF) from Eq. (30.6-1) is applied for other
ou fo

17  exposures.
e In

18  C30.6.1 Wind Load: Components and Cladding.

r

19  C30.6.1.2 Parapets.

Fo

20  Parapet C&C wind pressures can be obtained from the tables as shown in the parapet figures.
21  The pressures obtained are slightly conservative based on the net pressure coefficients for
rik

22  parapets compared to roof zones from Part 3. Two load cases must be considered based on
23  pressures applied to both windward and leeward parapet surfaces, as shown in Fig. 30.6-1.
St

24  C30.6.1.3 Roof Overhangs.

25  C&C pressures for roof overhangs for flat and monoslope roofs with h  60 ft ( h  18.3 m ) can
26  be obtained from the tables as shown in Fig. 30.6-2. These pressures are slightly conservative

23 
 
 1  and are based on the external pressure coefficients from Part 3. Pressures for roof overhangs in
2  flat, gable, hip, monoslope, and mansard roofs with h  60 ft ( h  18.3 m ) can be obtained
3  directly from the tabulated pressures in Fig. 30.4-1.

4  PART 53: OPEN BUILDINGS

5  C30.75 BUILDING TYPES

at
e LY
6  In determining loads on C&C elements for open building roofs using Figures 30.75-1, 30.75-2,

rm
7  and 30.75-3, it is important for the designer to note that the net pressure coefficient, C N , is based

lin N
8  on contributions from the top and bottom surfaces of the roof. This fact implies that—that is, the

Fo
er n O
9  element receives load from both surfaces. Such would not be the case if the surface below the
10  roof were separated structurally from the top roof surface. In this case, the pressure coefficient
11  should be separated for the effect of top and bottom pressures, or conservatively, each surface
nd o
12  could be designed using the C N value from Figures 30.75-1, 30.75-2, and 30.75-3.
U ati

13  PART 4: BUILDING APPURTENANCES AND ROOFTOP STRUCTURES AND

t / rm

14  EQUIPMENT
ou fo

15  C30.9 ATTACHED CANOPIES ON BUILDINGS

e In

16  The proposed provisions result from wind tunnel test results on pressures applied on horizontal
17  canopies described inby Zisis and Stathopoulos (2010), Zisis et al. (2011), Candelario et al.
r

18  (2014), Zisis et al. (2017), Sakib et al (2020 n.d.) and Naeiji et al. (2020). Restrictions to
Fo

19  canopies that are essentially flat (maximum slope: 2%) are based uponon a lack of test data.
20  Figures 30.9-1A and 30.9-1B are to be used for buildings under 60 ft (18.3 m) high, and Figures
21  30.9-2A and 30.9-2B are to be used for buildings over 60 ft (18.3 m) high. Canopies are different
rik

22  from roof overhangs, which are simply extensions of the roof surfaces at the same slope with the
23  roof.
St

24  In a canopy with two physical surfaces, both Figures 30.9-1A and 30.9-1B [(buildings with
25  height < 60 ft (< 18.3 m)] and both Figures 30.9-2A and 30.9-2B [(buildings with height > 60 ft
26  (> 18.3 m))] would be needed.

24 
 
 1  Figures 30.9-1A and 30.9-2A, which provide the coefficients on separate surfaces, would be
2  used to design the fasteners of the top and soffit elements. Figures 30.9-1B and 30.9-2B would
3  be used to design the structure of the canopy (e.g., joists, posts, and building fasteners). In a
4  canopy with one physical surface, only Figures 30.9-1B and 30.9-2B are needed.

5  The (GCp) values given in the figures are given in equation form in Tables C30.9-1 to C30.9-4.

6 

at
e LY
7  Table C30.9-1. Pressure Coefficients on Separate Surfaces of Attached Canopies on

rm
8  Buildings with h ≤ 60 ft (18.3 m) (Figure 30.9-1A).

lin N
Fo
Negative: GCp = –1.15 A = 10 ft2

er n O
Upper surface GCp = –1.55 + 0.1737 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = –0.75 A > 100 ft2
Negative: GCp = –0.8 A = 10 ft2
Lower surface GCp = –0.95 + 0.0651 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
nd o
GCp = –0.65 A > 100 ft2
U ati
Positive: GCp = 0.8 A = 10 ft2
Upper and lower surfaces GCp = 1.0 – 0.087 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = 0.6 A > 100 ft2
t / rm

9 

Table C30.9-2. Net Pressure Coefficients Canopies Considering Simultaneous

ou fo

10 
11  Contributions from Upper and Lower Surfaces on Attached Canopies on Buildings with h
e In

12  ≤ 60 ft (18.3 m) (Figure 30.9-1B).

r

Negative: GCp = –1.4 A = 10 ft2

Fo

0.9 ≤ hc/he ≤ 1 GCp = –1.7 + 0.1303 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –1.1 A > 100 ft2
Negative: GCp = –0.9 A = 10 ft2
0.5 < hc/he < 0.9 GCp = –1.15 + 0.1086 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = –0.65 A > 100 ft2
rik

Negative: GCp = –0.6 A = 10 ft2

hc/he ≤ 0.5 GCp = –0.7 + 0.0434 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = –0.5 A > 100 ft2
St

Positive: GCp = 0.9 A = 10 ft2

All hc/he GCp = 1.15 – 0.109 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = 0.65 A > 100 ft2
13 

25 
 
 1 

2  Table C30.9-3. Pressure Coefficients on Separate Surfaces of Attached Canopies on

3  Buildings with h > 60 ft (18.3 m) (Figure 30.9-2A).

Negative: GCp = –1.9 A = 10 ft2

Upper surface GCp = –2.1 + 0.0869 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = –3.1 + 0.304 logn(A) 100 ft2 < A ≤ 1000 ft2
Negative: GCp = –1.0 A = 10 ft2

at
Lower surface GCp = –1.2 + 0.0869 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2

e LY
GCp = –1.4 + 0.1303 logn(A) 100 ft2 < A ≤ 1000 ft2

rm
Positive: GCp = 0.8 A = 10 ft2
Upper and lower surfaces GCp = 1.0 – 0.087 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2

lin N
GCp = 0.6 A > 100 ft2

Fo
4 

er n O
5  Table C30.9-4. Net Pressure Coefficients Considering Simultaneous Contributions from
6  Upper and Lower Surfaces on Attached Canopies on Buildings with h > 60 ft (18.3 m)
nd o
7  (Figure 30.9-2B).
U ati
Negative: GCp = –2.3 A = 10 ft2
0.9 ≤ hc/he ≤ 1 GCp = –2.5 + 0.0869 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
t / rm

GCp = –3.9 + 0.3909 logn(A) 100 ft2 < A ≤ 1000 ft2

Negative: GCp = –1.3 A = 10 ft2
0.1 < hc/he < 0.9 GCp = –1.85 + 0.2389 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
ou fo

GCp = –0.75 A > 100 ft2

Positive: GCp = 0.9 A = 10 ft2
e In

All hc/he GCp = 1.15 – 0.109 logn(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = 0.65 A > 100 ft2
8 
r
Fo

9 

10  PART 75: NONBUILDING STRUCTURES

rik

11  C30.120 CIRCULAR BINS, SILOS, AND TANKS WITH h ≤ 120 ft (36.5 m)
St

12  Section 30.120 contains the provisions for determining wind pressures on silo and tank walls and
13  roofs., The results of for isolated and grouped silos are largely based on Australian sStandards
14  (Standards Australia 2011), and the wind tunnel tests by Sabransky and Melbourne (1987) and
15  Macdonald et al. (1988, 1990). Significant increases in the mean pressures of grouped silos were

26 
 
 1  found in the wind tunnel tests, so the provisions of grouped tanks and silos are specified in this
2  section.

3  C30.120.2 External Walls of Isolated Circular Bins, Silos, and Tanks

4  This section specifies the external pressure coefficients, GCp(α) , for the walls of circular bins,

5  silos, and tanks. The pressure coefficients for isolated silos are adopted from Australian

at
6  sStandards (Standards Australia 2011).

e LY
rm
7  C30.120.3 Internal Surface of Exterior Walls of Isolated Open-Topped Circular Bins, Silos,

lin N
8  and Tanks

Fo
er n O
9  This section specifies the internal pressure coefficients, ( GCpi ), for the walls of circular bins,

10  silos, and tanks. The internal pressure coefficients ( GCpi ) are adopted from Standards Australia
nd o
(2011). Based on the wind tunnel test results, mean pressures on walls for open-topped bins,
U ati
11 
12  silos, and tanks are different from the values of circular bins, silos, and tanks with flat or conical
t / rm

13  roofs. Table C30.120-1 lists the mean pressure coefficients ( GCp GCpi ) for open-topped

14  circular bins, silos, and tanks, based on Equations (30.1210-2) and (30.120-5). The distribution
ou fo

15  of the external pressure around the perimeter of the wall is shown in Figure C30.120-1.
e In

16  Table C30.120-1. Mean Pressure Coefficients (GCp – GCpi) for Open-Topped Tanks.
r

Aspect Ratio H/D

Fo

Angle α 0.25 0.50 1 2 3 4

0° 1.69 1.80 1.9 2 2.07 2.11

rik

15° 1.39 1.50 1.6 1.7 1.77 1.81

30° 0.99 1.10 1.2 1.3 1.37 1.41

St

45° 0.39 0.50 0.6 0.7 0.77 0.81

60° 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.13 0.09

27 
 
 75° 0.11 0.31  0.5  0.7 0.83 0.89

90° 0.11 0.31  0.5  0.7 0.83 0.89

105° 0.01 0.11  0.2  0.3 0.33 0.29

120° 0.09 0.10 0.2 0.2 0.27 0.21

135° 0.29 0.30 0.4 0.5 0.47 0.51

at
150° 0.29 0.40 0.5 0.5 0.57 0.61

e LY
rm
165° 0.29 0.40 0.5 0.5 0.57 0.61

lin N
180° 0.29 0.40 0.5 0.5 0.57 0.61

Fo
er n O
1 
nd o
U ati
t / rm
ou fo

2 

α = angle from the

e In

3  Note: D = diameter of circular structure, in ft (m); H = height in ft (m);

4  wind direction to a point on the wall of a circular bin, silo, or tank, in degrees.
r
Fo

5  Figure C30.120-1. Mean pressure coefficients ( (GCp )  (GCpi ) ) for open-topped tanks.

6 
rik

7  C30.120.4 Roofs of Isolated Circular Bins, Silos, and Tanks

St

8  This section specifies the external pressure coefficients, ( GC p ) for the roofs of circular bins,

9  silos, and tanks. Two conditions are covered, as shown in Figure 30.120-2: Class 1 roofs have
10  the roof angle θ < 10°, and Class 2 roofs have 10° ≤ θ < 30°. Zone 1 pressures are defined
11  differently, that either increaseincreasing either with the increment of the silo heights for Class 1

28 
 
 1  roofs, or with the silo or tank diameters for Class 2 roofs. For cladding design, Zone 3 pressures
2  are specified for the local pressures near the windward edges applicable to all classes, and Zone
3  4 is specified for the region near the cone apex used for Class 2b roofs only. Figure C30.120-2 is

4  the graphic presentation of the elevation views for the external pressure coefficients, ( GC p ).

5  For Class 1 roofs, the external pressure coefficients are based on comparisons of domed roofs
6  and flat roofs from Chapter 27 of ASCE 7-10 for maximum uplift conditions. The results of
Class 2 roofs are consistent with data of Sabransky and Melbourne (1987) and Macdonald et al.

at
7 

e LY
8  (1988).

rm
9 

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

10 
r

Figure C30.120-2. External pressure coefficients, ( GC p ), for roofs.

Fo

11 

12 
rik

13  C30.120.6 Roofs and Walls of Grouped Circular Bins, Silos, and Tanks
St

14  For grouped silos, ( GC p ) values for roofs and walls are largely based on AS/ NZS 1170.2

15  (Standards Australia 2011) and wind tunnel tests by Sabransky and Melbourne (1987) and
16  Macdonald et al. (1990). Test results of an in-line group of three silos with a clear spacing of
17  0.25D between nearest adjacent walls ( 1.25D center-to-center) by Sabransky and Melbourne

29 
 
 1  (1987) indicated that the mean pressure coefficient between the gaps increased by 70%
2  compared to the one for the isolated silo. A similar result was observed for the roof near the wall
3  of the silo. It was concluded that a clear spacing of 0.25D produced the maximum interference
4  between two finite cylinders.

5  Test results of an in-line group of five silos with various center-to-center spacings by Macdonald
6  et al. (1990) indicated that the region of positive pressure on the windward side spans a larger

at
7  angular sector of the circumference than that for an isolated silo, and high negative mean

e LY
8  pressures occur near the point of shortest distance between the adjacent silos and at the outside

rm
9  corners of the groups.

lin N
Fo
C30.12 ROOF PAVERS FOR BUILDINGS OF ALL HEIGHTS WITH ROOF SLOPES

er n O
10 
11  LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 7 DEGREES

12  Loose-laid roof pavers are often placed on the roof with gaps in between them and with spacing
nd o
underneath the pavers above the roof membrane using pedestals, tabs, or integrated legs. The net
U ati
13 
14  uplift pressure on pavers is substantially affected by pressure equalization between the top and
t / rm

15  bottom surfaces of the pavers, via the gaps between the solid pavers and by other openings that
16  may be present on pavers that are not solid (Irwin et al. 2012; Asghari Mooneghi et al. 2014,
ou fo

17  2016, 2017)[1,2,3,4]. The equalization effect is similar to that observed on solar panels mounted
18  parallel to a roof surface (Kopp 2013, Stenabaugh et al. 2015, Banks 2012)[5,6,7]. The highest
e In

19  uplifts generally occur near roof edges, particularly near roof corners, where strong vortices
20  cause very localized high suctions. Pressure equalization, which depends on the size of the gaps
r
Fo

21  between pavers and on the height of pedestals on which the pavers are frequently mounted, helps
22  reduce the net uplift compared with the external pressure calculated for a roof. As suchThus,
23  using roof external pressure coefficients for designing pavers, option (a) in Section 30.12,
rik

24  generally results in a conservative design.

25  Alternative (b) in Section 30.12 permits wind tunnel tests to determine pressure equalization
St

26  effects on pavers. These tests are of two types: measurement of 𝐶 by integration of net
27  pressures between the top and bottom surfaces; and/or direct measurement of the wind speeds at
28  roof level at which the paver lift- off is initiated, from which the effective value of 𝐶 can be
29  back-calculated. In wind tunnel tests the following influencing factors need to be considered:

30 
 
 1   the bBuilding and roof geometry;
2   the rRatio of the size of the gaps between the pavers to the height of pedestals on which
3  the pavers are mounted (dg/hg);
4   the iInterconnection of the pavers by straps or other means, which increases the effective
5  area over which wind uplift is spread and the weight that must be lifted;
6   Ddynamic effects that prevent the pavers from responding instantaneously to short-
7  duration uplift forces; and

at
e LY
8   the eEffect of parapet height.

rm
9 

lin N
10  Alternative (c) in Section 30.12 permits use of methods in the recognized literature. The methods

Fo
er n O
11  should take account of the five factors a) through e) listed above. For pavers laid directly on the
12  roof membrane as part of a roof ballast system, guidance can be found in ANSI/SPRI RP-4
13  (2013)Reference [8] for roof heights less than 150 ft (46 m).
nd o
U ati
14  REFERENCES
15  Abdelfatah, N., A. Elawady, P. Irwin, and A. G. Chowdhury. 2020. “Wind pressure distribution
t / rm

16  on single-story and two story elevated structures.” In Proc., 5th Residential Building
17  Design and Construction Conf., State College, Pennsylvania.
ou fo

18  Akins, R. E., and J. E. Cermak. 1975. “Wind pressures on buildings.” Technical Report CER
7677REAJEC15. Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion Lab, Colorado State University, Fort
e In

19 
20  Collins.
r

21  ANSI (American National Standards Institute). 1982. Minimum design loads for buildings and
Fo

22  other structures. ANSI A58.1-1982. Washington, DC: ANSI.

23  ANSI/SPRI. 2013. Wind design standard for ballasted single ply roofing systems. ANSI/SPRI
24  RP-4. https://www.spri.org.
rik

25  ASCE. 1998. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7-95. Reston,
26  VA: ASCE.
St

27  ASCE. 2002. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-02. Reston,
28  VA: ASCE.
29  ASCE. 2017. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures.
30  ASCE/SEI 7-16. Reston, VA: ASCE.

31 
 
 1  ASCE Task Committee on Wind-Induced Forces. 2011. Wind loads for petrochemical and other
2  industrial facilities. Reston, VA: ASCE.
3  Asghari Mooneghi, M., P. Irwin, and A. Gan Chowdhury. 2014. “Large-scale testing on wind
4  uplift of roof pavers.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 128: 22–36.
5  Asghari Mooneghi, M., P. Irwin, and A. Gan Chowdhury. 2016. “Towards guidelines for design
6  of loose-laid roof pavers for wind uplift.” Wind and Structures: An International Journal
7  22 (2): 133–160.

at
e LY
8  Asghari Mooneghi, M., T. Smith, P. Irwin, and A. Gan Chowdhury. 2017. “Concrete roof

rm
9  pavers: Wind uplift aerodynamic mechanisms and design guidelines. A proposed addition
to ANSI/SPRI RP-4.” RCI, Inc. 32nd International Convention and Trade Show, March

lin N
10 

Fo
11  16–21, Anaheim, CA.

er n O
12  ASTM International. 2006. “Standard specification for rigid poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) siding.”
13  ASTM D3679-06a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2007. “Standard test method for wind resistance of sealed asphalt shingles (uplift
nd o
14 
U ati
15  force/uplift resistance method).” ASTM D7158-07. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
16  Banks, D. 2012. “Wind loads on tilted flat panels on commercial roofs: The effects of corner
t / rm

17  vortices.” In Advances in Hurricane Engineering, C. P. Jones and L. G. Griffis, eds.

18  Reston, VA: ASCE.
ou fo

19  Baskaran, A. 1992. “Review of design guidelines for pressure equalized rainscreen walls.”
20  Internal Report No. 629. Institute for Research in Construction, National Research
e In

21  Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Baskaran, A., S. Molleti, S. Ko, and L. Shoemaker. 2012. “Wind uplift performance of
r

22 
Fo

23  composite metal roof assemblies.” J. Archit. Eng. 18 (1): 2–15.

24  Candelario, J. D., T. Stathopoulos, and I. Zisis. 2014. “Wind loading on attached canopies:
25  Codification study.” Struct. Eng. 140 (5), CID: 04014007.
rik

26  Cheung, J. C. J., and W. H. Melbourne. 1986. “Wind loadings on porous cladding.” In Proc., 9th
27  Australian Conf. on Fluid Mechanics, Australasian Fluid Mechanics Society, Victoria,
St

28  Australia, 308.

29  Cope, A., L. Crandell, D. Johnston, V. Kochkin, Z. Liu, L. Stevig, and T. Reinhold. 2012. “Wind
30  loads on components of multi-layer wall systems with air-permeable exterior cladding.”

32 
 
 1  In Advances in Hurricane Engineering, C. P. Jones and L. G. Griffis, eds. Reston, VA:
2  ASCE, 238–257.
3  Davenport, A. G., D. Surry, and T. Stathopoulos. 1977. “Wind loads on low-rise buildings.”
4  Final Report on Phases I and II, BLWT-SS8. University of Western Ontario, London.
5  Davenport, A. G., D. Surry, and T. Stathopoulos. 1978. “Wind loads on low-rise buildings.”
6  Final Report on Phase III, BLWT-SS4. University of Western Ontario, London.
7  Gavanski, E., B. Kordi, G. A. Kopp, and P. J. Vickery. 2013. “Wind loads on roof sheathing of

at
e LY
8  houses.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 114: 106–121.

rm
9  Haig, J. R. 1990. Wind loads on tiles for USA. Redland Technology, Horsham, West Sussex, UK.
Ho, T. C. E., D. Surry, D. Morrish, and G. A. Kopp. 2005. “The UWO contribution to the NIST

lin N
10 

Fo
11  aerodynamic database for wind loads on low buildings. Part 1. Basic aerodynamic data

er n O
12  and archiving.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93: 1–30.
13  Irwin, P., C. Dragoiescu, M. Cicci, and G. Thompson. 2012. “Wind tunnel model studies of
aerodynamic lifting of roof pavers.” In Proc., ATC & SEI Conference on Advances in
nd o
14 
U ati
15  Hurricane Engineering, Miami, FL.
16  https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784412626.043.
t / rm

17  Kala, S., T. Stathopoulos, and K. Kumar. 2008. “Wind loads on rainscreen walls: Boundary-
18  layer wind tunnel experiments.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 96(6-7): 1058–1073.
ou fo

19  Kim, J. H., M. Moravej, E. J. Sutley, A. Chowdhury, and T. N. Dao. 2020. “Observations and
20  analysis of wind pressures on the floor underside of elevated buildings.” Eng. Struct.,
e In

21  accepted for publication.

Kopp, G. A. 2013. “Wind loads on low profile, tilted, solar arrays placed on large, flat, low-rise
r

22 
Fo

23  building roofs.” J. Struct. Eng. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000825.

24  Kopp, G., and E. Gavanski. 2012. “Effects of pressure equalization on the performance of
25  residential wall systems under extreme wind loads.” J. Struct. Eng. 138 (4): 526–538.
rik

26  Kopp, G. A., and M. J. Morrison. 2014. “Component and cladding pressures and zones for the
27  roofs of low-rise buildings.” Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Report, University of
St

28  Western Ontario, London.

29  Macdonald, P. A., J. D. Holmes, and K. C. S. Kwok. 1990. “Wind loads on circular storage bins,
30  silos and tanks. II. Effect of grouping.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 34 (1), 77–95.

33 
 
 1  Macdonald, P. A., K. C. S. Kwok, and J. D. Holmes. 1988. “Wind loads on circular storage bins,
2  silos and tanks: 1. Point pressure measurements on isolated structures.” J. Wind Eng. Ind.
3  Aerodyn. 31 (2-3): 165–187.
4  Main, J. A., and W. P. Fritz. 2006. “Database-assisted design for wind: Concepts, software, and
5  examples for rigid and flexible buildings.” Building Science Series 180. National
6  Institute of Standards and Technology.
7  Mehta, K. C., and M. L. Levitan. 1998. “Field experiments for wind pressures.” Department of

at
e LY
8  Civil Engineering Progress Report, Texas Tech University.

rm
9  Naeiji, A., M. Moravej, M. Matus, and I. Zisis. 2020. “Codification study of wind-induced loads
on canopies attached to mid-rise buildings.” Draft in preparation.

lin N
10 

Fo
11  Peterka, J. A., and J. E. Cermak. 1975. “Wind pressures on buildings: Probability densities.” J.

er n O
12  Struct. Div. 101 (6): 1255–1267.
13  Peterka, J. A., J. E. Cermak, L. S. Cochran, B. C. Cochran, N. Hosoya, R. G. Derickson, C.
Harper, J. Jones, and B. Metz. 1997. “Wind uplift model for asphalt shingles.” J. Arch.
nd o
14 
U ati
15  Eng. 3 (4): 147–155.
16  Saathoff, P. J., and T. Stathopoulos. 1992. “Wind loads on buildings with sawtooth roofs.” J.
t / rm

17  Struct. Eng. 118 (2): 429–446.

18  Sabransky, I. J., and W. H. Melbourne. 1987. “Design pressure distribution on circular silos with
ou fo

19  conical roofs.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 26 (1): 65–84.

20  Sakib, F. A., T. Stathopoulos, and A. Bhowmick. n.d. “Wind-induced loads on canopies attached
e In

21  on the walls of tall buildings.” Draft in preparation.

SBCCI (Southern Building Code Congress International). 1994. Standard building code.
r

22 
Fo

23  Janesville, WI: SBCCI.

24  St. Pierre, L. M., G. A. Kopp, D. Surry, and T. C. E. Ho. 2005. “The UWO contribution to the
25  NIST aerodynamic database for wind loads on low buildings: Part 2. Comparison of data
rik

26  with wind load provisions.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93: 31–59.
27  Standards Australia. (2011). Structural design actions: Wind actions. AS/NZS 1170.2:2011.
St

28  North Sydney: Standards Australia.

29  Stathopoulos, T., and M. Dumitrescu-Brulotte. 1989. “Design recommendations for wind loading
30  on buildings of intermediate height.” Can. J. Civil Eng. 16 (6): 910–916.

34 
 
 1  Stathopoulos, T., and A. R. Mohammadian. 1986. “Wind loads on low buildings with mono-
2  sloped roofs.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 23: 81–97.
3  Stathopoulos, T., and P. Saathoff. 1991. “Wind pressures on roofs of various geometries.” J.
4  Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 38: 273–284.
5  Stathopoulos, T., and X. Zhu. 1988. “Wind pressures on buildings with appurtenances.” J. Wind
6  Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 31: 265–281.
7  Stathopoulos, T., and X. Zhu. 1990. “Wind pressures on buildings with mullions.” J. Struct. Eng.

at
e LY
8  116 (8): 2272–2291.

rm
9  Stenabaugh, S. E., Y. Iida, G. A. Kopp, and P. Karava. 2015. “Wind loads on photovoltaic arrays
mounted on sloped roofs of low-rise building, parallel to the roof surface.” J. Wind Eng.

lin N
10 

Fo
11  Indust. Aerodyn. 139 (4): 16–26.

er n O
12  Surry, D., and Stathopoulos, T. (1988). “The wind loading of buildings with monosloped roofs.”
13  Final report, BLWT-SS38. University of Western Ontario, London.
Taylor, T. J. 1991. “Wind pressures on a hemispherical dome.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 40
nd o
14 
U ati
15  (2): 199–213.
16  Templin, J. T., and J. E. Cermak. 1978. “Wind pressures on buildings: Effect of mullions.”
t / rm

17  Technical Report CER76-77JTT-JEC24. Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion Lab, Colorado
18  State University, Fort Collins.
ou fo

19  Vickery, P. J., G. A. Kopp, and L. A. Twisdale Jr. 2011. “Component and cladding wind
20  pressures on hip and gable roofs: Comparisons to the U.S. wind loading provisions.” 13th
e In

21  International Conference on Wind Engineering, Amsterdam.

Zisis, I., and T. Stathopoulos. 2010. “Wind-induced pressures on patio covers.” Struct. Eng. 136
r

22 
Fo

23  (9): 1172−1181.

24  Zisis, I., F. Raji, and J. D. Candelario. 2017. “Large-scale wind tunnel tests of canopies attached
25  to low-rise buildings.” ASCE Journal of Architectural Engineering 23 (1).
rik

26  doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000235.
27  Zisis, I., T. Stathopoulos, and J. D. Candelario. 2011. “Codification of wind loads on a patio
St

28  cover based on a parametric wind tunnel study.” In Proc., 13th Int. Conf. on Wind
29  Engineering, July 10−15, Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Multi-Science.
30 
31  OTHER REFERENCES (NOT CITED)

35 
 
 1  Batts, M. E., M. R. Cordes, L. R. Russell, J. R. Shaver, and E. Simiu. 1980. “Hurricane wind
2  speeds in the United States.” NBS Building Science Series 124. Washington, DC:
3  National Bureau of Standards.
4  Best, R. J., and J. D. Holmes. 1978. “Model study of wind pressures on an isolated single-story
5  house.” Wind Engineering Report 3/78. James Cook University, North Queensland,
6  Australia.
7  Beste, F., and J. E. Cermak. 1996. “Correlation of internal and area-averaged wind pressures on

at
e LY
8  low-rise buildings.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Colloq. on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and

rm
9  Applications, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg.
Chock, G., J. Peterka, and G. Yu. 2005. “Topographic wind speed-up and directionality factors

lin N
10 

Fo
11  for use in the city and county of Honolulu building code.” In Proc., 10th Americas Conf.

er n O
12  on Wind Engineering, Baton Rouge, LA.
13  CSA Group. 2015. “Standard test method for the dynamic wind uplift resistance of vegetated
roof assemblies.” CSA A123.24-15. Toronto, ON: CSA Group.
nd o
14 
U ati
15  Davenport, A. G., C. S. B. Grimmond, T. R. Oke, and J. Wieringa. 2000. “Estimating the
16  roughness of cities and sheltered country.” In Proc., 12th AMS Conf. on Applied
t / rm

17  Climatology. Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society, 96–99.

18  Eaton, K. J., and J. R. Mayne. 1975. “The measurement of wind pressures on two-story houses at
ou fo

19  Aylesbury.” J. Indust. Aerodyn. 1 (1): 67–109.

20  Ellingwood, B. 1981. “Wind and snow load statistics for probabilistic design.” J. Struct. Div. 107
e In

21  (7): 1345–1350.

ESDU (Engineering Sciences Data Unit). 1990. “Strong winds in the atmospheric boundary
r

22 
Fo

23  layer. Part 1: Mean hourly wind speeds.” Item no. 82026, with Amendments A to C.
24  London: ESDU.
25  Ho, E. 1992. “Variability of low building wind lands.” Doctoral dissertation, University of
rik

26  Western Ontario, London.

27  Marshall, R. D. 1977. “The measurement of wind loads on a full-scale mobile home.” NBSIR
St

28  77-1289. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards.

29  McDonald, J. R. 1983. “A methodology for tornado hazard probability assessment.”
30  NUREG/CR3058. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

36 
 
 1  Peterka, J. A., and S. Shahid. 1993. “Extreme gust wind speeds in the U.S.” In Proc., 7th US Nat.
2  Conf. on Wind Engineering, Gary Hart, ed. International Association for Wind
3  Engineering, Kanagawa, Japan, vol. 2, 503–512.
4  Powell, M. D. 1980. “Evaluations of diagnostic marine boundary-layer models applied to
5  hurricanes.” Monthly Weather Rev. 108 (6): 757–766.
6  Sataka, N., K. Suda, T. Arakawa, A. Sasaki, and Y. Tamura. 2003. “Damping evaluation using
7  full-scale data of buildings in Japan.” J. Struct. Eng. 129 (4): 470–477.

at
e LY
8  SPRI (Single Ply Roofing Industry). 2013. “Wind design standard for vegetative roofing

rm
9  systems.” ANSI/SPRI RP-14. Waltham, MA: Single Ply Roofing Industry.
Stathopoulos, T. 1981. “Wind loads on eaves of low buildings.” J. Struct. Div. 107 (10): 1921–

lin N
10 

Fo
11  1934.

er n O
12  Stathopoulos, T., and H. Luchian. 1990. “Wind pressures on building configurations with
13  stepped roofs.” Can. J. Civil Eng. 17 (4), 569–577.
Stathopoulos, T., and H. Luchian. 1992. “Wind-induced forces on eaves of low buildings.” In
nd o
14 
U ati
15  Proc., Wind Engineering Society Inaugural Conf., Cambridge, United Kingdom.
16  Stathopoulos, T., D. Surry, and A. G. Davenport. 1979. “Wind-induced internal pressures in low
t / rm

17  buildings.” In Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Wind Engineering, J. E. Cermak, ed., Colorado
18  State University, Fort Collins.
ou fo

19  Stathopoulos, T., K. Wang, and H. Wu. 1999. “Wind standard provisions for low building gable
20  roofs revisited.” In Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Wind Engineering, J. E. Cermak, ed.,
e In

21  Balkema, Netherlands.

Stathopoulos, T., K. Wang, and H. Wu. 2000. “Proposed new Canadian wind provisions for the
r

22 
Fo

23  design of gable roofs.” Can. J. Civil Eng. 27 (5): 1059–1072.

24  Stathopoulos, T., K. Wang, and H. Wu. 2001. “Wind pressure provisions for gable roofs of
25  intermediate roof slope.” Wind and Structures 4(2).
rik

26  Stubbs, N., and D. C. Perry. 1993. “Engineering of the building envelope: To do or not to do.” In
27  Hurricanes of 1992: Lessons learned and implications for the future, R. A. Cook and M.
St

28  Sotani, eds. Reston, VA: ASCE Press, 10–30.

29  Surry, D., R. B. Kitchen, and A. G. Davenport. 1977. “Design effectiveness of wind tunnel
30  studies for buildings of intermediate height.” Can. J. Civil Eng. 4 (1): 96–116.

37 
 
1  Twisdale, L. A., P. J. Vickery, and A. C. Steckley. 1996. Analysis of hurricane windborne debris
2  impact risk for residential structures. Bloomington, IL: State Farm Mutual Automobile
3  Insurance Companies.
4 

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

38