TIR-A15-14 Design Wind Load Determination

A M E R I C A N A R C H I T E C T U R A L
AAMA TIR-A15-14
Overview of Design Wind

Load Determination for
Fenestration Systems
M A N U F A C T U R E R S A S S O C I A T I O N
Copyright by the American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA). This document was purchased by Richard Apfel of Skyline Windows on Mon Aug 11 2014. It may not be
reproduced, republished or distributed in any format without the express written consent of AAMA.
•
1.0 SCOPE ......................................................................................................... 1

2.0 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS..................................................................... 3
3.0 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................... 3
4.0 DESIGN WIND LOADS ................................................................................ 4
5.0 INTRODUCTION TO BOUNDARY LAYER WIND TUNNEL TESTING .... 19
6.0 BOUNDARY LAYER WIND TUNNEL TESTING ....................................... 24
7.0 METEOROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION .................................................... 28
AAMA. The Source of Performance Standards, Products Certification and

Educational Programs for the Fenestration Industry.
All AAMA documents may be ordered at our web site in the “Publications Store”.
©2014 American Architectural Manufacturers Association – These printed or electronic

pages may NOT be reproduced, republished or distributed in any format without the
express written consent of the American Architectural Manufacturers Association.
This document was developed and maintained by representative members of AAMA

as advisory information. AAMA DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO
THIS INFORMATION, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL AAMA BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER FROM THE USE, APPLICATION OR ADAPTATION
OF MATERIALS PUBLISHED HEREIN. It is the sole responsibility of the
user/purchaser to evaluate the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any
information, opinion, advice or other content published herein.
AAMA TIR-A15-14
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: 1985
PRECEDING DOCUMENT: CW-11-85
PUBLISHED: 8/14
American Architectural Manufacturers Association

1827 Walden Office Square, Suite 550, Schaumburg, IL 60173
PHONE (847) 303-5664 FAX (847) 303-5774
Copyright by the American Architectural
EMAIL webmaster@aamanet.org Manufacturers
WEBSITE Association (AAMA). This document was purchased by Richard Apfel of Skyline Windows on Mon Aug 11 2014. It may not be
www.aamanet.org
1.0 SCOPE
INTRODUCTION
This TIR was originally named Design Wind Loads for Building Cladding and Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Testing and
was the eleventh volume of AAMA's Aluminum Curtain Wall Series. It was devoted to the subjects of design wind loads for
building cladding and the role of boundary layer wind tunnel (BLWT) testing in the determination of such loads. The
document was initially published in 1985 when BLWT testing for buildings was a relatively new field and limited
information was available on its methods and use.
Over the years, improvements in predicting wind velocities and patterns have been made so that many buildings can be
reliably designed using the data and formulas provided in the 2010 edition of ASCE/SEI 7, “Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures.” BLWT is still necessary, however, under certain conditions that cannot reliably be predicted
with ASCE/SEI 7.
It is this TIR’s purpose to discuss the following:
1) The determination of design wind loads, on curtain walls and other building cladding systems (exterior fenestration
systems), using the national standards ASCE/SEI 7-05 and -10, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures.” This standard, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, gives procedures for finding various design
loads.
2) The Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel (BLWT) and its use, including:
i) understanding the BLWT and its unique features
ii) using the BLWT to develop wind load data which is essential to safe and economical wall design
iii) criteria for deciding when use of BLWT should be considered
iv) necessity of good climatological data for effective use of the tunnel
WIND LOADS
Wind load is the principal load to which components and cladding, exterior fenestration systems or curtain walls are
subjected. It is of paramount importance, therefore, to have some knowledge of wind and how it acts on a wall if a
structurally adequate design is to be achieved.
Today, the action of wind on fenestration systems is far better understood than it was three decades ago. It is known that high
localized loadings on walls caused by gusts make it necessary to design walls for higher unit pressures than those used for the
building structure. Negative wind pressures, particularly at the corners of buildings will be higher than the highest positive
wind pressures. Terrain and surrounding structures will affect the wind speed at different heights above the ground.
ASCE/SEI 7-10 provides the most current information on these and other items critical to the proper design of building
cladding.
When the modern aluminum curtain wall was introduced in building construction shortly after the end of World War II, none
of the items mentioned in the previous paragraph were well understood or taken into account by the curtain wall designer. At
that time the designer was dependent primarily on the wind load specified by the governing building code. If this was met,
the design was legally acceptable and calculations were reasonably simple. The wind loads specified were those generally
used by structural engineers to determine the shear force and overturning moment on the building structure. There was no
appreciation of high localized loadings due to gusts or the way the air flows around the building. There was no consideration
given to the fact that negative loads on certain areas of a wall could be much higher than the maximum positive loads. There
was a recognition that wind speeds increased with heights and it was assumed that the wind pressure on the wall increased
from the ground floor of the building to the roof. Actually the maximum pressure on the windward wall may occur half way
down the face. Also there was no consideration of the manner in which wind speed varies with height above ground due to
the effects of terrain and surrounding structures. A high-rise building in the center of a city is not going to be subjected to the
same wind speed profile that it would be subjected to on the ocean front.
AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 1

CURTAIN WALL FAILURES
The net result was that some curtain walls and other fenestration systems designed in accordance with the accepted code
requirements during those early years of curtain wall design failed. The most common type of failure was due to high
negative loads which resulted in glass breakage, anchor failure and disengagement of windows and panels. These failures
occurred in what at the time were unexpected areas. Some failures would occur at a distance down from the top of the
building when the highest loads had been predicted at the top. They would occur at corners and away from corners.
Designers, knowing that their designs met the code requirements, rightfully began to suspect that the wind load data with
which they were working was not adequate. Model testing in wind tunnels was one of the means considered to develop
reliable data.
WIND TUNNEL HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
Wind tunnel experiments to determine the effects of winds on building structures date back to 1893. Wind tunnel
development was stimulated by the advent of powered aircraft in the early 20th century. Aeronautical wind tunnels reached a
high degree of perfection prior to World War II. Wind pressure tests on a rigid model of the Empire State Building were
conducted in an aeronautical type wind tunnel at the National Bureau of Standards in 1933. Aeronautical wind tunnels with
relatively short working sections are designed for uniform air flow with a minimum of turbulence. The velocity of the air is
nearly constant over much of the working area. Although this is fine for testing aircraft, it does not simulate natural wind
flowing across the terrain and hence in model building tests conducted in aeronautical wind tunnels there was disagreement
between the model results and full scale measurements. Finally, in 1958, the need for modeling the turbulent shear flow
properties of natural wind was fully recognized. Wind tunnels with long working sections capable of producing turbulent
boundary layer models of the natural wind were designed and built. These are the tunnels which are quite logically referred to
as Boundary Layer Wind Tunnels, (BLWT). With the advent of the BLWT, the exterior wall designer at last had a design
tool which could provide, with a high degree of confidence, the wind load data needed to design a structurally adequate
curtain wall system.
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
During the development of a satisfactory method of model testing, it was important that concurrent progress be made in the
accuracy and availability of meteorological data to be used by designers. Wind speed and height profiles were developed for
varying terrain conditions. Better data on gusts were also developed, and gust factors were determined for the fastest 100 feet
and fastest 10th mile in addition to the fastest mile. Currently, however, data is collected on peak gust wind speeds associated
with an averaging time of approximately 3 seconds. This data enables the designer to account for time duration of the load as
well as its magnitude. This is very important since glass, gaskets and other materials used in curtain wall construction are
time sensitive to load. Most important, to properly utilize the data obtained from the BLWT tests, it is essential to know and
specify the extreme wind conditions to which the building will be exposed. While there is still much to be learned about wind
and the effects it has on buildings, major advances have been made in the last two decades. By utilizing the information and
testing techniques available today the designer can design an exterior wall system with assurance that it will perform up to
expectations when exposed to the severe wind conditions which are likely to occur in the area in which the building is located
during the service life of the building.
WHEN TO USE BLWT TESTING
The question of when to use BLWT testing must be answered by the architects and engineers responsible for the building
design. Such testing does result in an added expense in the design phase of a project. However, such added expense may be
more than offset by the economical design which will result. In the U.S. this reduction in load is limited by the International
Building Code (IBC) to 20% less than that specified in ASCE/SEI 7. Beyond this, of course, is the reduction in the
probability of a failure and costly repairs because of the more accurate information on wind loading derived from the testing;
it should also be noted that a newly erected building may, under certain wind conditions, cause wind speeds at ground level
to be of such magnitude as to be unsafe for pedestrians. The BLWT test can predict whether or not this can happen.
Considered from the point of view of insurance only, this type of testing can make eminently good sense.
The design load requirements for wind given in ASCE/SEI 7-10 apply to typical rectangular buildings with vertical walls.
Buildings of other configurations must always be considered prospects for BLWT testing. Acute wall angles, unusual
projections or set-backs, re-entrant corners, sloped walls, curved walls, open arcades, bundled tubular construction or other
unusual construction should be tested unless there is substantial data available from previous work on similar structures that
can be relied on for wind load criteria. Chapter 31 of ASCE/SEI 7-10 describes the requirements for wind tunnel testing.

Buildings which are to be located in center city areas should be modeled to determine the wind effects caused by surrounding
buildings. If future construction or demolition is planned in the same area, additional tests should be made to ascertain what
effect this will have on wind loading. Unusual topographical conditions surrounding a building such as a river valley with
adjacent hills, the foothills of a mountainous area, ocean fronts and areas with unusual wind conditions would all dictate
consideration of BLWT testing to determine wind load design requirements.
2.0 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

2.1 References to the standard listed below shall be to the edition indicated. Any undated reference to a code or standard
appearing in the requirements of this standard shall be interpreted as referring to the latest edition of that code or standard.
2.2 American Architectural Manufactures Association (AAMA)
AAMA AG-13, AAMA Glossary
2.3 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures
3.0 DEFINITIONS
3.1 Please refer to AAMA Glossary (AG-13) for all definitions except for those appearing below (which apply to this
Technical Information Report (TIR)).
3.1.1 ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN – A method of proportioning structural members such that elastically computed
stresses produced in the members by a nominal load do not exceed specified allowable stresses (also called “working stress
design”)
3.1.2 DESIGN STRENGTH – The product of the nominal strength and a resistance factor
3.1.3 FACTORED LOAD – The product of the nominal load and a load factor
3.1.4 IMPORTANCE FACTOR – A factor that accounts for the degree of risk to human life, health, and welfare associated
with damage to property or loss of use or functionality.
3.1.5 NOMINAL STRENGTH – The capacity of a structure or member to resist the effects of loads, as determined by
computations using specified material strengths and dimensions and formulas derived from accepted principles of structural
mechanics or by field or laboratory tests of scaled models allowing for modeling effects and differences between laboratory
and field conditions.
3.1.6 RESISTANCE FACTOR – A factor that accounts for deviations of the actual strength from the nominal strength and
the manner and consequences of failure (also called “reduction factor”).
3.1.7 RISK CATEGORY - A categorization of buildings and other structures for determination of flood, wind, snow, ice
and earthquake loads based on the risk associated with unacceptable performance.
3.1.8 STRENGTH DESIGN – A method of proportioning structural members such that the computed forces produced in the
members by the factored loads do not exceed the member design strength (also called “load and resistance factor design”)

4.0 DESIGN WIND LOADS
ASCE/SEI 7, MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES
The American Society of Civil Engineers' standard, ASCE/SEI 7 provides an analytical basis for determining wind loads on
buildings. It also establishes the requirements for Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel (BLWT) testing, when such testing is to be
employed for determining wind loads. The standard may be used by architects and engineers to determine wind load design
requirements for the main building structure and the exterior walls. The standard serves as the basis for the wind load
requirements of the International Building Code (IBC), which is the most widely used model code in the United States. In
view of its wide acceptance, it is important to understand this standard so that it may be used to full advantage when
appropriate. On the other hand, it is important to understand the limitations of its analytical procedures in order that BLWT
testing can be specified when necessary for the proper determination of wind loads on a building envelope design. The
standard prescribes the analytical procedures to be used for determining the design wind pressures for individual components
and cladding and for the main wind-force resisting systems of buildings. However, this article will concern itself only with
the procedures for components and cladding, as determined per ASCE/SEI 7. Since the requirements of local code
jurisdictions may differ, compliance must be shown with the controlling wind load provisions of the local jurisdiction. .
Building Characteristics
In order to correctly define the variables in the design wind load equations and correctly apply the results, certain building
characteristics must be determined. Since ASCE/SEI 7 was developed based on rectangular buildings, the definition of
tributary area, building corner discontinuity, least building width and mean roof height are fairly straight forward. The vast
majority of buildings, however, are not perfect rectangles and these definitions are subject to interpretation. For these
irregularly shaped buildings, it is best to have a boundary layer wind tunnel study performed on a scale model of the building.
When cost limitations prevent BLWT testing, engineering judgment may be the only recourse for approximating wind load
on the building. As a guide, the AAMA task group on wind loads has developed consensus interpretations for these
definitions based on the literature available, model codes, commentaries and sound engineering judgment. These definitions
are as follows:
Effective Wind Area
The effective wind area for a structural element is that portion of the total surface area that is subject to wind loads and is to
be supported by the structural element considered. For an effective wind area rectangular in shape, the width of the area need
not be less than one-third the length of the area. For a cladding panel that may experience wind load, the effective wind area
is the exposed surface area of the panel. A structural element may receive wind load from several panels; in this case, the
effective wind area is the sum of the contributing areas from each panel.
For a curtain wall mullion, the effective wind area is calculated as the mullion span length between anchors multiplied by the
mullion spacing. If the mullion spacing is less than one-third the span between anchors, the effective wind area, for use in
determining the pressure coefficients, may be found by multiplying the span length by one-third this length.
Building Corner Discontinuity
An unobstructed exterior corner with an interior angle, Θ, of less than 170 degrees may cause wind flow separation creating
negative pressure. These negative pressures are assumed to act on each side of the corner. The widths of these corner wind
load zones may overlap adjacent obstructed exterior corners and adjacent interior corners.
Interior corners and obstructed exterior corners are not considered building discontinuities. An obstructed exterior corner is a
corner that lies within a line (a-a, b-b in Figure 1) that can be drawn between two unobstructed corners without crossing or
overlaying any line of the building plan.
Small building setbacks are not considered building discontinuities in certain circumstances. A small building setback is
defined here as an offset in the building facade less than half the width of the corner zone that creates one or more exterior
and interior corners. A small setback in the facade can be considered not to create wind flow separation provided the
following two conditions apply: a) both faces adjoining the setback are greater than the width of the corner zone, and b) in
the case of non-parallel adjoining faces, the interior angle created at the projected intersection of the adjoining faces is less
than 170 degrees.

Small notches in the building facade in most cases are not considered discontinuities. A notch is defined here as an offset in
the building facade that creates exterior corners at its intersection with both adjoining faces, and both of these exterior corners
lie on the line created by projecting one or both of the adjoining faces. A notch can be considered not to create flow
separation if the perpendicular distance from the projected line joining the exterior corners to the innermost point of the notch
is less than half the width of the corner zone and condition b) applicable to setbacks is met.
The individual unobstructed exterior corners within a series of building facade offsets that create a sawtooth pattern (the
“teeth” of the saw may be of any shape) usually can be considered to not create flow separation. For the individual corners
not to create flow separation it must be possible to draw a straight line through the outermost points of the “teeth”, and the
perpendicular distance from this line to the innermost point of the individual setback must be less than half the width of the
corner zone. The first and last unobstructed exterior corners in a series of setbacks must be evaluated individually,
considering adjacent conditions, to determine if they cause wind flow separation.
Building discontinuities must, of course, be determined using engineering judgment and common sense. These guidelines are
intended to cover typical building layouts. In cases of particularly complex building geometry wind tunnel testing should be
considered.
FIGURE 1: INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR CORNERS
NOTE 1: The corner designated by * would not be considered a building discontinuity if dimension s is less than half the
width of the corner zone and dimensions x and y are greater than the width of a corner zone.

Least Width of Building
This is the shortest distance between two parallel lines that contain the entire building floor plan at the applicable height. See
Figure 2.
BUILDING PLAN
FIGURE 2: Least Width of Building
Building Height
This is taken as the height of the tallest main roof structure above the lowest grade adjacent to the building. See Figure 3. For
sloped roofs, building height may be taken to the mean height of the sloped roof, except that eave height shall be used for
roof angles, θ, of less than or equal to 10 degrees.
FIGURE 3: Building Height
Additional values that must be determined to find the design wind pressures for various areas of the curtain wall according to
ASCE/SEI 7 are:
1. velocity pressure, q
2. external pressure coefficients, GCp
3. internal pressure coefficients, GCpi
The methods used to determine these items are covered in this TIR Sample calculations for two specific building locations
are given to illustrate the procedures.

VELOCITY PRESSURE
The velocity pressure, qz , at height z is calculated by the formula
qz = 0.00256KzKztKdV2 (lb/ft2) ASCE/SEI 7-10 Equation 30.3-1

Kd = wind directionality factor defined in section 26.6, assumed to be 0.85
Kz = velocity pressure exposure coefficient defined in section 30.3.1
Kzt = topographic factor defined in section 26.8
V = basic wind speed from Section 26.5
qh = velocity pressure calculated using Eq. 30.3-1 at height h
Refer to the current version of ASCE/SEI 7 for determination of these variables.
BASIC WIND SPEED AND IMPORTANCE FACTOR
V, the basic wind speed in miles per hour, is selected from 1 of 3 maps depending on the risk category of the building’s
intended occupancy, as given in ASCE/SEI 7-10. The wind speed contours on these maps correspond to 3-second gust speeds
at 33 ft. (10 m) above ground in exposure Category C.
In previous editions of ASCE/SEI 7 (’05 and before) there was one wind speed map and separate importance factors (I) for
each Risk Category that were used as multipliers to adjust the design wind speed. ASCE/SEI 7-10 has combined the wind
speed and importance factor for each Risk Category and given each it’s own map.
Buildings are divided into four categories, based on the risk to human life posed by the building’s intended occupancy and
use. For purposes of selecting the correct map the user of ASCE/SEI7 must be familiar with the different risk categories.
These risk categories are described in Table 1.

Use or Occupancy of Buildings and Structures Risk Category
Buildings and other structures that represent a low risk to human life in the event of failure. I
All buildings and other structures except those listed in Risk Categories I, III, and IV II
Buildings and other structures, the failure of which could pose substantial risk to human life. IIII
Buildings and other structures, not included in Risk Category IV, with potential to cause a
substantial economic impact and/or mass disruption of day-to-day civilian life in the event of
such failures
Buildings and other structures not included in Risk Category IV (including, but not limited to,
facilities that manufacture, process, handle, store, use, or dispose of such substances as
hazardous fuels, hazardous chemicals, hazardous waste, or explosives) containing toxic or
explosive substances where their quantity exceeds a threshold quantity established by the
authority having jurisdiction and is sufficient to pose a threat to the public if released.
Buildings and other structures designated as essential facilities. IV

Buildings and other structures, the failure of which could pose a substantial hazard to the
community.
Buildings and other structures (including, but not limited to, facilities that manufacture,
process, handle, store, use, or dispose of such substances as hazardous fuels, hazardous
chemicals, or hazardous waste) containing sufficient quantities of highly toxic substances
where the quantity exceeds a threshold quantity established by the authority having jurisdiction
to be dangerous to the public if released and is sufficient to pose a threat to the public if
released.*
Buildings and other structures required to maintain the functionality of other Risk Category IV
structures.
*Buildings and other structures containing toxic, highly toxic, or explosive substances shall be eligible for classification to a
lower Risk Category if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction by a hazard assessment
as described in ASCE/SEI 7-10 Section 1.5.2 that a release of the substances is commensurate with the risk associated with
that Risk Category.
TABLE 1 --- (Excerpt of Table 1.5-1 from ASCE/SEI 7-10) – Risk Category of Buildings and Other Structures for
Flood, Wind, Snow, Earthquake, and Ice Loads

VELOCITY PRESSURE EXPOSURE COEFFICIENTS AND GROUND SURFACE ROUGHNESS
The velocity pressure exposure coefficient, Kz, at height z takes into account the variation in ground surface roughness that
arises from natural topography and vegetation as well as from constructed features surrounding the site on which the building
is to be located.
Section 26.7 of ASCE/SEI 7 establishes three categories of exposure:
NOTE 2: Refer to the current version of ASCE/SEI 7 for determination of these exposures.
WIND BORNE DEBRIS
According to ASCE/SEI 7, wind borne debris regions are located within hurricane-prone regions. Hurricane-prone regions
are:
1. The U.S. Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico coasts where the basic wind speed for Risk Category II buildings is
greater than 115 mi/h and
2. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.
Wind borne debris regions are areas within hurricane–prone regions that meet one of the following two requirements:
1. Within 1 mi. of the coastal mean high water line where the basic wind speed is equal to or greater that 130 mi/h
(58 m/s).
2. In areas where the basic wind speed is equal to or greater than 140 mi/h (63m/s).
In these regions, the potential exists for wind borne debris to impact the glazing. If the building envelope is breached, internal
pressurization may result. For this reason, ASCE/SEI 7 recommends that the lower 60 feet of buildings located in wind borne
debris regions be designed to prevent breaching of the building envelope. If the lower 60 feet is not protected against wind
borne debris, the glazing receiving positive external pressure shall be assumed to be openings. The requirements for wind
borne debris protection in the applicable local code may differ from ASCE/SEI 7. The jurisdiction where the cladding will be
installed should be contacted to determine the wind borne debris requirements.
The determination of the wind pressures is the final step in establishing the wind loads for which the component and cladding
must be designed. Note that ASCE/SEI 7-10 does require a minimum load of 16 lbf/ft2. As is normally done in structural
design, a safety factor is used for the design of component and cladding. This factor is intended to ensure that neither a
tolerable overload, nor an actual strength which is tolerably below nominal, will cause failure. Consistent with the design
practice of using a safety factor, curtain wall strength testing has customarily used pressures which are 50% higher than the
corresponding allowable stress design pressure.
COMPARISON OF ASCE/SEI 7-05 AND EARLIER EDITIONS TO ASCE/SEI 7-10
ASCE/SEI 7-10 calculations now provide design wind pressure values based on strength design (load and resistance factor
design) in place of previously used allowable stress design in ASCE/SEI 7-05 and earlier editions. ASCE/SEI 7-10 allows for
conversion from strength design to allowable stress design by applying a factor of 0.6. This conversion is important in
correlating the correct design load when using working loads with safety factors.

EXAMPLE 1: ASCE/SEI 7-10 for Buildings Less than 60 Feet in Height
BUILDING PLAN VIEW
Building height: h = 50 ft limit 20 ft

Minimum building width: b = 170 ft limit 17 ft
Corner zone: a = 17 ft
EXTERIOR ANGLES
Exterior Angle Type Obstr Length 1 Length 2 Separation

Angles (degrees) (ft) (ft)
1 90 ext no 50 55 yes
2 168.0 ext no 55 100 yes
3 113.3 ext no 100 132 yes
4 168.7 ext no 132 30 yes
5 90 ext no 30 30 yes
6 90 int yes 30 20 no
7 90 ext yes 20 20 no
8 90 int yes 20 50 yes
9 90 ext no 50 104 yes
10 90 ext no 104 100 yes
11 90 int yes 100 20 no
12 90 ext no 20 100 yes
13 90 int yes 100 5 no
14 90 ext no 5* 50 no
*length does not cause separation

CORNER WIND LOAD –
TYPE
1 13 11 9 4 3 2 1
2 14 12 10
BUILDING CORNER 5
DESIGNATION-
SEE PLAN VIEW
WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION
14 11 9 5 9 7 3 1
4
1 10 8 4 10 8 2
13 5
12
12 6
13 SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION

ASCE/SEI 7-10 Hurricane Zone Building Height < 60 FT
Floor plan: see drawing

Roof height (Figure 6-5A): h = 50 ft (roof is flat, i.e., θ ≤ 10 degrees)
Minimum building width: w = 170 ft
Corner area width: a = 17 ft
Effective wind area: Mullions spanning 12 feet between anchors and spaced 3 feet apart.
Effective wind area may therefore be based on minimum width of L/3
or 4 feet.
A= (12/3)12
A= 48ft2
Location: Houston, TX (enclosed building)

Risk Category: II
6.5.4 Basic wind speed (Figure 26.5-1A): V = 136 mph
6.5.4.4 Wind Directionality Factor (Table 26.6-1): Kd = 0.85
6.5.5 Exposure Category: B
6.5.6 Wind speed over hills: Kzt = 1 (no effect from hills)
6.5.10 Velocity pressure exposure coefficient
at height z = 50 ft (Table30.3-1): Kz = 0.81
Velocity pressure (Eq. 30.3.2): qz = 0.00256 • Kz • Kzt • Kd • V2
qh = 32.600 psf
qz = 32.600 psf
Internal pressure coefficients: (Table 26.11-1): GCpi = 0.18 GCpi = – 0.18

1 2
External pressure coefficients (Figure30.4-1):

Reduce by 10% because of roof slope ≤ 10 degrees per Note 5 of Figure 30.4-1.
Positive Wind Load: For Zones 4 & 5: (0.9)GCp = 0.79
Negative Wind Load: For Zone 4: (0.9)GCp = –0.88
zone4
For Zone 5: (0.9)GCp = – 1.04
zone5
Design wind pressures (the pressures are converted to allowable stress design loads by multiplying by 0.6):
Positive Wind Load: For Zones 4 & 5: p = qz [(0.9 GCp) – (GCpi )]
2
z = 50 ft.
p = 31.622(0.6) = 19 psf
Negative Wind Load: For Zone 4: pzone4 = qh [(0.9 GCp ) – (GCpi )]
zone4 1
pzone4 = – 34.556(0.6) = -21 psf
For Zone 5: pzone5 = qh [(0.9 GCp ) – (GCpi )]
zone5 1
pzone5 = –39.772(0.6) = -24psf

ASCE/SEI 7-10 Non-Hurricane Zone Building Height < 60 FT

Roof height (Figure 6-5A): h = 50 ft (roof is flat, i.e., θ ≤ 10 degrees)
Effective wind area may there-fore be based on minimum width of L/3
or 4 feet.
A= (12/3)12
A= 48ft2
Location: Minneapolis, MN (enclosed building)

Risk Category: II
6.5.4 Basic wind speed (Figure 26.5-1A) V = 115 mph
6.5.10 Velocity pressure exposure coefficient
at height z = 50 ft (Table 30.3-1): Kz = 0.81
Velocity pressure (Eq.30.3.2): qz = 0.00256 • Kz • Kzt • Kd • V2 • I
qh = 23.310psf
qz = 23.310 psf
Internal pressure coefficients: (Table26.11-1): GCpi = 0.18 GCpi = – 0.18

1 2
External pressure coefficients (Figure30.4-1):

Reduce by 10% because of roof slope ≤ 10 degrees per Note 5 of Figure30.4-1.
Positive Wind Load: For Zones 4 & 5: (0.9)GCp = 0.79
Negative Wind Load: For Zone 4: (0.9)GCp = –0.88
zone4
For Zone 5: (0.9)GCp = –1.04
zone5
Positive Wind Load: For Zones 4 & 5: p = qz [(0.9 GCp) – (GCpi )]
2
z = 50 ft.
p = 22.611(0.6) = 14 psf
Negative Wind Load: For Zone 4: pzone4 = qh [(0.9 GCp ) – (GCpi )]
zone4 1
pzone4 = –24.709(0.6) = -15 psf
For Zone 5: pzone5 = qh [(0.9 GCp ) – (GCpi )]
zone5 1
pzone5 = – 28.438(0.6) = -17 psf

EXAMPLE 2: ASCE/SEI 7-10 for Buildings Greater than 60 Feet in Height
BUILDING PLAN VIEW
Building height: h = 250 ft limit 100 ft

Minimum building width: b = 170 ft limit 17 ft
Corner zone: a = 17 ft
EXTERIOR ANGLES (Lower Floors Only)
Exterior Angle Type Obstr Length 1 Length 2 Separation

Angles (degrees) (ft) (ft)
1 90 ext no 50 55 yes
4 168.0 ext no 55 100 yes
5 113.3 ext no 100 132 yes
6 168.7 ext no 132 30 yes
7 90 ext no 30 30 yes
8 90 int yes 30 20 no
9 90 ext yes 20 20 no
10 90 int yes 20 50 yes
11 90 ext no 50 104 yes
12 90 ext no 104 100 yes
13 90 int yes 100 20 no
14 90 ext no 20 100 yes
15 90 int yes 100 5 no
16 90 ext no 5* 50 no
*length does not cause separation

ASCE/SEI 7-10 Hurricane Zone Building Height > 60 FT

Roof height: h = 250 ft
or 4 feet.
A= (12/3)12
A= 48ft2
Location: Houston, TX (enclosed building)

Risk Category: II
6.5.10 Velocity pressure exposure coefficient at height z (Table 6-5):
qz = 0.00256 • Kz • Kzt • Kd • V2
qh = 51.52 psf
z Kz qz
50 0.81 32.6
100 0.99 39.8
150 1.11 44.7
200 1.20 48.3
250 1.28 51.5
Internal pressure coefficients: (Table 26.11-1): GCpi = 0.18

1
GCpi = – 0.18
2
External pressure coefficients (Figure 30.6-1):
Positive Wind Load: GCp = 0.82

For Zones 4 & 5:
Negative Wind Load: For Zone 4: GCp = – 0.85
zone4
For Zone 5: GCp = – 1.58
zone5
Positive Wind Load: For Zones 4 & 5: p = qh [(GCp) – (GCpi )]

2
z pz
50 32.6(0.6) = 20 psf
100 39.8(0.6) = 24 psf
150 44.7(0.6) = 27 psf
200 48.3(0.6) = 29psf
250 51.5(0.6) = 31 psf
Negative Wind Load: For Zone 4: pzone4 = qh [(GCp ) – (GCpi )]

zone4 1
pzone4 = – 51.5(0.6) = -32 psf
For Zone 5: pzone5 = qh [(GCp ) – (GCpi )]
zone5 1
pzone5 = – 90.6(0.6) = -54 psf

ASCE/SEI 7-10 Non-Hurricane Zone Building Height >60 FT

Roof height: h = 250 ft
or 4 feet.
A=(12/3)12
A=48ft2
Location: Minneapolis, MN (enclosed building)

Risk Category: II
6.5.10 Velocity pressure exposure coefficient at height z (Table 6-3):
qz = 0.00256 • Kz • Kzt • Kd • V2 • I
qh = 36.8 psf
z Kz qz
50 0.81 23.3
100 0.99 28.5
150 1.11 31.9
200 1.20 34.5
250 1.28 36.8
Internal pressure coefficients: (Table 26.11-1): GCpi = 0.18 GCpi = – 0.18

1 2
External pressure coefficients (Figure 30.6-1):
Positive Wind Load: For Zones 4 & 5: GCp = 0.82

Negative Wind Load: For Zone 4: GCp = –0.85
zone4
For Zone 5: GCp = –1.58
zone5
Positive Wind Load: For Zones 4 & 5: p = qz [(GCp) – (GCpi )]

2
z pz
50 23.3(0.6) = 14 psf
100 28.5(0.6) = 17 psf
150 31.9(0.6) = 19 psf
200 34.5(0.6) = 21 psf
250 26.8(0.6) = 22 psf
Negative Wind Load: For Zone 4: pzone4 = qh [(GCp ) – (GCpi )]

zone4 1
pzone4 = – 37.9(0.6) = -23 psf
For Zone 5: pzone5 = qh [(GCp ) – (GCpi )]
zone5 1
pzone5 = – 64.8(0.6) = 39 psf

LIMITATIONS OF ASCE/SEI 7 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The provisions given in ASCE/SEI 7 apply to the majority of site locations and buildings and structures, but for some
locations, such as the following, these provisions may be inadequate.
1. Site locations that have channeling effects or wakes from upwind obstructions. Channeling effects can be caused by
topographic features (e.g., mountain gorge) or buildings (e.g., a cluster of tall buildings). Wakes can be caused by hills or by
buildings or other structures.
2. Buildings with unusual or irregular geometric shape, including domes, barrel vaults, and other buildings whose shape
differs significantly from a uniform polygon in plan or profile or from a series of superimposed prisms. Unusual or irregular
geometric shapes include buildings with multiple setbacks, curved facades, irregular plan resulting from significant
indentations or projections, openings through the building, or multi-tower buildings connected by bridges.
3. Buildings with unusual response characteristics, which result in across-wind and/or dynamic torsional loads, loads caused
by vortex shedding, or loads resulting from instabilities such as flutter or galloping. Examples of buildings and structures
which may have unusual response characteristics include flexible buildings with natural frequencies below one Hz, tall
slender buildings (building height-to-width ratio exceeds 4), and cylindrical buildings or structures.
NOTE 3: Vortex shedding occurs when wind blows across a slender prismatic or cylindrical body. Vortices are alternately
shed from one side of the body and then the other side, which results in a fluctuating force acting at right angles to the wind
direction (across-wind) along the length of the body.
In view of the foregoing limitations it is often desirable to subject a model of a proposed new building design to boundary
layer wind tunnel (BLWT) testing, particularly if it is a major building, a building of unusual shape or a building having
special design features. Buildings that are undergoing component and cladding retrofits may be good candidates for a BLWT,
particularly if there has been significant new building construction in the immediate vicinity. In addition to the building itself,
BLWT testing takes into account the effects of the surrounding structures, the topography and the wind direction. The data
obtained from the tests make possible the determination of positive and negative pressure coefficients for all areas of the
curtain wall. With BLWT test data (peak maximum and minimum pressures, time averaged pressures [mean pressures], and
root-mean square values of pressure fluctuations), and with good meteorological data on winds at the building site, the
designer knows the critically loaded areas of the wall. The designer also knows the location of any areas of extreme pressure
("hot spots"), the time duration of mean pressures, and whether vortex shedding may be a problem. With this information, the
designer is in a position to optimize the safety and economy of the wall design and to specify a more realistic program for
proof testing the wall. The calculation of wind design pressures from pressure coefficients and velocity pressures follows
procedures similar to those used in ASCE/SEI 7.
ASCE/SEI-7 recognizes the value of BLWT testing and accepts design wind pressures determined by this type of testing
(instead of by the ASCE/SEI 7 analytical procedure) provided that:
1. The natural wind has been modeled to account for the variation of wind speed with height,
2. The natural wind has been modeled to account for the intensity of the longitudinal component of turbulence,
3. The geometric scale of the structural model is not more than three times the longitudinal component of turbulence,
4. The response characteristics of the wind tunnel instrumentation are consistent with the measurements to be made,
and
5. Due regard is given to the dependence of forces and pressures on the Reynolds number.

5.0 INTRODUCTION TO BOUNDARY LAYER WIND TUNNEL TESTING
BACKGROUND
The evolution of cladding systems having lighter weight and greater efficiency has made the accurate and realistic description
of wind loading a critical factor in their design, affecting both the satisfactory performance and economy. One of the means
for providing this information on wind loading is through the application of boundary layer wind tunnel, BLWT, testing,
which is the subject of this section.
Although wind tunnel experiments to determine the effects of winds on building structures date back to 1893, it was only in
the late 1950's that serious deficiencies were noticed in the procedures used. The major deficiency arose from the fact that the
wind tunnel tests were usually run in aeronautical type wind tunnels in smooth, uniform flow. As such, the flow was
unrepresentative of the natural wind which, generally speaking, is very turbulent and gusty and increases in speed with height
above ground. Both these features are illustrated in Figure 4, which depicts a recording of strong wind over flat open prairie.
From the graph, it is obvious that for pressures, which are a function of the square of the wind speed, both the fluctuations
and the variation with height will be more pronounced.
In urban areas, where the roughness of the terrain is much greater than in prairie conditions, the fluctuations in wind speed
and their variation with height are proportionately greater. This dependence of the mean wind speed profile on the terrain is
illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 5. This shows a strong wind storm with a gradient wind speed of "100" progressing
over terrain of varying roughness. By definition, the wind above the gradient level is not directly influenced by the local
surface conditions. Below the gradient level the flow is termed the boundary layer.
It became evident in the late 1950's and early 1960's that wind tunnel testing had to represent these vital boundary layer
characteristics or otherwise run the risk of giving highly misleading information. Danish engineer and wind tunnel researcher
Martin Jenson made this point most clearly in 1958. Wind tunnels with long working sections capable of producing turbulent
boundary layer models of the natural wind were designed and built. These are the tunnels which are quite logically referred to
as Boundary Layer Wind Tunnels, BLWT.
The first impetus for a complete test of a major building using a boundary layer wind tunnel came with the design of The
World Trade Center in New York Wind tunnel studies were carried out in three wind tunnels: the meteorological wind tunnel
at Colorado State University, the National Physical Laboratory in England and, during the later stages, the BLWT Laboratory
at the University of Western Ontario. The success of this study, as well as the evident need for better information, led to
investigations for other major buildings. Initially almost all of these studies were carried out either at Colorado State
University or The University of Western Ontario. Research interest led to an increase in the number of wind tunnels suitable
for research into the study of wind loading, and a number of testing laboratories have been established, which routinely carry
out wind studies for major projects. The much greater acceptance of these procedures and the recognition of their need have
led to a rapid increase in the numbers of buildings tested.

FIGURE 4: Record of Wind Speed at Three Heights on a 500 Ft. Mast
FIGURE 5: Profiles of 3 Second Gust Speeds Over Level Terrains of Differing Roughness

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL AND WIND TUNNEL TESTING APPROACHES TO WIND
LOADING
The introduction of BLWT testing led to the development of two important issues in adapting the procedures for design.
First, the pressures and their coefficients formed from BLWT testing were very definitely dynamic, and yet were
replacements for purely static pressure coefficients which were derived from established testing procedures in uniform,
steady flow. An illustration of the pressures measured in full scale on the outer face of a tall building is shown in Figure 6.
Corresponding measurements in a wind tunnel are shown in Figure 7.
The second issue is related to the establishment of the equivalence of the flow conditions and wind speeds between the wind
tunnel and full scale. Both the manner of defining the wind speed in full scale and its exposure (e.g. open country) may not
have any exact counterpart in the wind tunnel. Both of these matters have been resolved gradually but not always
unequivocally.
The purpose of this section is to describe the procedures for BLWT testing for cladding design and the design approaches
which have emerged from this.
THE FORMULATION OF WIND LOADING
In setting the stage for this discussion it is important to recognize that the wind loading process is composed of several
interlocking factors, namely
• the wind climate;

• the influence of height and exposure, i.e. terrain roughness and topography;
• the aerodynamic pressure coefficients, both external and internal;
• the mechanical response to pressures.
These factors are expressed directly in the formulae for the design wind pressures used by the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE/SEI 7). This expression in ASCE/SEI 7 has the general form:
EQUATION 1
Over the years the wind speeds used to determine the reference velocity pressure have changed due to revisions in the models
used to determine the design wind speeds These changes stem largely from the differences in the averaging interval (3-
second gust vs. “fastest mile”) over which the wind speeds are measured) and the return period of the design wind speed.
These changes affect the definition of other factors such as the gust response factors.

FIGURE 6: Typical Wind Pressures on Cladding of CIBC Building, Montreal, Canada (Dalgleish, 1971)
FIGURE 7: Typical Wind Tunnel Pressure Record Showing Mean, Root-Mean Square (RMS), Maximum and
Minimum Values of the Pressure Coefficient
Note that the pressure coefficient has been treated as a time varying quantity to be subjected to statistical analysis.

THE ROLE OF BOUNDARY LAYER WIND TUNNEL TESTING IN DESIGN
To identify the design role that boundary layer wind tunnel testing fulfills in defining the pressures on cladding, we may refer
back to the expression for design pressures in equation (1). Essentially, it provides direct information on the product of the
below formula:
By recreating a model of the flow itself and the building, the fluctuating pressures at all points on the surface can be
monitored in coefficient form. What it cannot do is define the extreme reference wind speed (or velocity pressure) and its
direction. This is normally the subject of a separate but complimentary study.
INTERNAL PRESSURES
The critical pressure for the design of the building envelope is the difference between the external and internal pressures.
While the external pressure coefficients are determined directly through BLWT testing, the internal pressures are dependent
on the air leakage paths into the building (including air leakage due to wind or in extreme cases, glass breakage) and pressure
differentials created by the buildings Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system. These internal pressures
and internal pressure coefficients can differ significantly from the reference pressures at gradient height and must be
considered.
The framework of a wind tunnel study for the cladding of a major building is indicated schematically in Figure 8. The two
principal components-the meteorological study and the wind tunnel tests-are together synthesized to define the pressures for
different return periods or risk levels. Supplementary to this there may also be topographic model studies designed to provide
information on the large scale flow features which can assist in the interpretation of meteorological field data and in defining
the flow approaching the building. In parallel to the pressure testing for the cladding there may be other studies intended to
define the loading on the structural frame of the building, which is clearly an efficient adjunct to a test program.
The following sections describe in detail the components of the wind tunnel test.
FIGURE 8: A Simplified Flow Diagram of a Complete Wind Tunnel Study

6.0 BOUNDARY LAYER WIND TUNNEL TESTING
THE BOUNDARY LAYER WIND TUNNEL
Acquisition of realistic wind loads on structures through measurements on small-scale models depends in large part upon the
capability to simulate characteristics of natural wind on a scale equal to the model scale. Wind up to heights above ground
level of about 1500 ft., the height range of most buildings, is of primary concern for specification of wind loads on curtain
walls. This height corresponds closely to the nominal depth of the atmospheric boundary layer over urban areas during a
strong wind of the magnitude used to determine design wind loads. The atmospheric boundary layer is, by definition, the
atmospheric motion up to a height where ground based obstacles such as buildings, trees and low hills cease to affect wind
characteristics. In this layer the vertical distribution of mean wind speed and turbulence intensity and scale (gustiness) are
determined primarily by surface features upwind of a particular building site. Thus, simulation of natural wind to determine
design wind loads for curtain walls requires simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer. For this reason, wind tunnels
designed to physically model wind loads on structures are known as boundary layer wind tunnels (BLWT).
The basic features of a BLWT are illustrated by Figure 9. A long test section with the floor covered by surface objects, scaled
to the same scale as the building under study, is used to develop a boundary layer with flow characteristics similar to those
for the actual site.
FIGURE 9: Features of a BLWT Test Section for Natural Development of the Atmospheric Boundary Layer at a
Building Site
BUILDING-MODEL TYPES FOR DETERMINATION OF WIND EFFECTS
Two basic types of small-scale building models are used to obtain wind-effect data by BLWT testing. The simplest model,
the type used to establish curtain wall wind loads, is a rigid (static) model that remains un-deflected and stationary when
placed in the flowing air. A large number of pressure taps are distributed over the surface of this type of model to obtain
pressure distributions or, when only overall mean wind moments and forces are desired, the model can be placed on a force
and moment balance to make direct measurement of these quantities. The other type is an aeroelastic (dynamic) model that is
constructed to deflect and oscillate in response to fluctuating flow-induced forces. Strain gages mounted on elastic elements
and accelerometers attached to the frame of an aeroelastic model are used to measure peak (and mean) values of fluctuating
moments, deflections and accelerations for the overall building.
Rigid building models provide essential wind-pressure data to achieve economical curtain wall designs that have low risk of
damage. A model of this type is shown in Figure 10. Plastic sheets approximately 0.4 inches thick are accurately machined to
reproduce exterior architectural details of the full-scale structure and assembled with machine screws. This construction
allows easy disassembly for connection of pressure taps to the differential pressure transducers by plastic tubing. The rigid
model is designed to measure the instantaneous pressure difference p between pressure at a pressure tap on the exterior
surface of the model Ps and a reference pressure Pref measured well above the model in flow undisturbed by the model. Thus,
the fundamental quantity measured is an instantaneous difference between pressure on the exterior building surface and
atmospheric pressure; i.e.,
P = Ps - Pref . . . . . . . . . . . Equation 2

With proper pressure-measuring instrumentation and data processing equipment, surface distributions of the following
quantities can be determined by measurements at each of the pressure taps:
1. peak minimum pressures Pmin = (Ps − Pref )min ........................................................ Equation 3

2. peak maximum pressures Pmax = (Ps − Pref )max ...................................................... Equation 4
1 t
3. time-averaged (mean pressures) Pmean = ∫0 (PS − Pref)(dt) ..................................... Equation 5
T
4. root-mean-square (rms) values of pressure fluctuations
1�
1 𝑇 2
𝑃𝑟𝑚𝑠 = � � (𝑃 − 𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 )2 𝑑𝑡�
𝑇 0
Equation 6
Refer to Figure 7 for typical pressure trace from a wind tunnel test.
For the most part Pmin results in local outward directed forces that determine the required strength of curtain wall elements.
Local inward directed forces associated with Pmax cause infiltration of water, dust and air through leaks in the curtain wall
system and are commonly used to specify pressure differences for mock-up tests. Resultant mean forces and moments acting
on the entire building can be obtained by integration of local forces corresponding to P over the entire building surface. These
may be multiplied by an appropriate gust factor to estimate peak forces and moments. When wind pressure on curtain wall
elements are not needed and only overall wind loads on a building are required, the rigid model can be mounted on a multi-
component balance for direct measurement of forces and moments.
Sketch of Pressure Tap Pressure Switch, Tubing and Transducers in a Small-

Scale Building Model
FIGURE 10
The entire model may, in general, be divided into three zones: 1) the test building model, 2) the local surroundings model
(proximity model) extending out to a radius of 2-3 times the test building height H and 3) the upwind approach model that
extends from the proximity model (often the upwind edge of the turntable) to at least a distance of 15 H. The proximity
model is a scale model of all structures and topographic features constructed mostly of styrofoam and wood. On the other
hand, the upwind approach model is usually constructed of roughness elements (and topographic features) to produce an
aerodynamic equivalent model. Aerodynamic equivalence results from selection of the roughness element height to be the
scaled down average height of prototype roughness elements. The actual extent and details for models of the two site-
surrounding zones must be determined following careful study of the site and its surroundings. Figure 11 shows a completed
model installed in a BLWT with scaled roughness elements upwind of the turntable.

FIGURE 11: Wind Tunnel Model of DTC Financial Center Towers, Denver, CO
Formulation of a test plan requires critical assessment of both existing and future buildings adjacent to the site. If there is a
strong possibility that the building being designed would cause adverse changes in curtain wall wind loads on an adjacent
existing building, then pressure measurements on vulnerable locations of the existing building are recommended. Future
adjacent buildings can modify curtain-wall pressures on the new building. Consideration of this problem leads to two options
for testing. If the future building has a high probability of being constructed within one or two years following construction
of the building under study, a model of the future building (provided knowledge of its size and shape is available) is usually
included. When adjacent buildings are expected to be constructed within three to five years, the test building will be exposed
to both surrounding building configurations for sufficient time to give high probability that the design wind will occur either
with or without the future adjacent building in place. A test plan that includes pressure measurements both with and without
the future building or buildings in place is recommended in order to reduce the risk of future wind loads that exceed design
loads. Figure 4-4 shows the contour lines for maximum negative pressures predicted from the model measurements.

FIGURE 12: Contours of Maximum Negative Pressure (in pounds per square foot) on Surface of Sears Tower (Willis
Tower), Chicago, Predicted from Model Measurements (Davenport et al, 1971)
Wind direction changes are implemented by rotation of the turntable upon which the test building is centered and adjustment
of the upwind approach model as necessary. Usually 36 basic wind directions are specified. These are taken at 10°
increments to cover 360° and are identified as the number of degrees measured clockwise from true north. Measurements at
intermediate wind directions, ± 2° from a basic direction where an extreme peak pressure is recorded at a critical location, are
recommended to assure measurement of the maximum local pressure.
BLWT testing provides far more detailed information on possible wind pressure patterns that will occur on walls and roofs
than the ASCE/SEI methods of calculating pressures can provide. Additional information on BLWT testing is presented in
ASCE/SEI manuals and reports on Engineering Practice No. 67, "Wind Tunnel Model Studies of Buildings and Structures,
1996."

7.0 METEOROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS
The acquisition of aerodynamic pressure coefficients through boundary layer wind tunnel tests is clearly a vital step in
describing accurately and realistically the pressure on the cladding of a building. However, as pointed out, it provides only
part of the essential information required to define the pressures themselves. To initiate the prediction it is equally important
to specify the extreme wind conditions to which the building is exposed.
The estimation of extreme winds inevitably relies on meteorological observations. These take on a variety of forms and
require careful interpretation. Two of the most important factors modifying any wind speed measurement are first the
averaging time and second the exposure. The averaging times (or averaging distances) are introduced through data reduction
procedures or through the response characteristics of the instruments and recorders. These range from periods of an hour or
longer to short interval gusts lasting only a second or so. The anemometer exposure is affected by the height above ground,
the structure it is mounted on, as well as the size distribution and extent of the upwind obstacles over which the wind must
blow.
Both these factors exert considerable influence on the wind speed as measured.
The basis for extreme wind speed estimation in the United States is normally the surface observations of "3 second gust"
wind speed. In Canada "mean hourly" wind speeds converted to velocity pressure are used. Observations of wind speed over
many years are needed to establish the extremes.
The primary network of stations in the U.S. providing these 24 hour data has changed over the years; while the original
reporting stations were often in the center of major cities these are now almost all at airports.
OTHER WIND STORM TYPES
The boundary layer wind tunnel modeling procedure is now recognized as providing a good representation of strong
sustained wind storm conditions. Equally there are other storm conditions which are known to deviate in details of their flow
structure from this model. Such storms include thunderstorms, down-slope winds and tornadoes. These tend to be local in
character. The question of whether the incidence of these storms is such as to distort the predictions based on the boundary
layer model needs to be addressed.
Other severe storms such as hurricanes and typhoons are larger scale phenomena and their boundary layer appears to follow
the boundary layer model at least in the range of normal building heights, although the boundary layer depth may be
effectively shallower. Special procedures for predicting the wind climate in these storms are available in other references but
not discussed here.

American Architectural Manufacturers Association
1827 Walden Office Square, Suite 550
Schaumburg, IL 60173
PHONE (847)303-5664 FAX (847)303-5774
EMAIL webmaster@aamanet.org
WEBSITE www.aamanet.org

TIR-A15-14 Design Wind Load Determination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TIR-A15-14 Design Wind Load Determination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A M E R I C A N A R C H I T E C T U R A L

Overview of Design Wind

1.0 SCOPE ......................................................................................................... 1

AAMA. The Source of Performance Standards, Products Certification and

©2014 American Architectural Manufacturers Association – These printed or electronic

This document was developed and maintained by representative members of AAMA

American Architectural Manufacturers Association

It is this TIR’s purpose to discuss the following:

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 1

WIND TUNNEL HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

WHEN TO USE BLWT TESTING

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 2

2.0 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

2.2 American Architectural Manufactures Association (AAMA)

AAMA AG-13, AAMA Glossary

2.3 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 3

Effective Wind Area

Building Corner Discontinuity

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 4

FIGURE 1: INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR CORNERS

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 5

FIGURE 2: Least Width of Building

FIGURE 3: Building Height

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 6

The velocity pressure, qz , at height z is calculated by the formula

qz = 0.00256KzKztKdV2 (lb/ft2) ASCE/SEI 7-10 Equation 30.3-1

Refer to the current version of ASCE/SEI 7 for determination of these variables.

BASIC WIND SPEED AND IMPORTANCE FACTOR

These risk categories are described in Table 1.

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 7

Buildings and other structures designated as essential facilities. IV

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 8

Section 26.7 of ASCE/SEI 7 establishes three categories of exposure:

WIND BORNE DEBRIS

2. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

COMPARISON OF ASCE/SEI 7-05 AND EARLIER EDITIONS TO ASCE/SEI 7-10

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 9

BUILDING PLAN VIEW

Building height: h = 50 ft limit 20 ft

Exterior Angle Type Obstr Length 1 Length 2 Separation

*length does not cause separation

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 10

13 SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 11

Floor plan: see drawing

Location: Houston, TX (enclosed building)

Internal pressure coefficients: (Table 26.11-1): GCpi = 0.18 GCpi = – 0.18

External pressure coefficients (Figure30.4-1):

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 12

Floor plan: see drawing

Location: Minneapolis, MN (enclosed building)

Internal pressure coefficients: (Table26.11-1): GCpi = 0.18 GCpi = – 0.18

External pressure coefficients (Figure30.4-1):

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 13

BUILDING PLAN VIEW

Building height: h = 250 ft limit 100 ft

EXTERIOR ANGLES (Lower Floors Only)

Exterior Angle Type Obstr Length 1 Length 2 Separation

*length does not cause separation

AAMA TIR-A15-14 Page 14

Floor plan: see drawing

Location: Houston, TX (enclosed building)

Internal pressure coefficients: (Table 26.11-1): GCpi = 0.18