Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Characterization of wind-induced pressure on membrane roofs based on

full-scale wind tunnel testing
Johnny Estephan a, Changda Feng b, *, Arindam Gan Chowdhury a, Mauricio Chavez c,
Appupillai Baskaran c, Mohammadtaghi Moravej d
a
Florida International University, 10555 W. Flagler St., Miami, FL, USA
b
AIR Worldwide, Lafayette City Center, #2, Boston, MA, USA
c
National Research Council Canada, 1200 Montreal Road, Ottawa, ON, Canada
d
Walker Consultants, 606 S. Olive St., Los Angeles, CA, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Flexible roofing systems (e.g., membrane roofs) are widely used in low-rise commercial and industrial buildings,
Flexible membrane roof accounting for over 60% of low-sloped building roofs in North America. Despite their wide usage, the effects of
Full-scale wind tunnel testing roof flexibility are neither thoroughly studied, nor accounted for in current building design codes and standards.
Wind-induced pressure coefficients
To investigate such roof flexibility effects on wind-induced pressure, full-scale testing was conducted at the
Wall of Wind
Partial Turbulence Simulation (PTS)
NHERI Wall of Wind (WOW) Experimental Facility (EF). The mechanically attached roof system (MARS) and
partially adhered roof system (PARS), two of the most commonly used commercial roofing systems with different
flexibility characteristics, were considered in this study. “U-shaped” pressure taps were used to measure the
wind-induced pressure on the membrane roof, and the pressure coefficients were compared to those measured on
a plywood roof. The effects of wind direction and wind speed on the wind-induced pressure coefficients of
membrane roofs were studied. The results showed that the membrane deformation due to the membrane roof
flexibility resulted in a reduction in the peak pressure coefficients as compared to those of rigid plywood roof.
This reduction in wind loads is more significant for the MARS (27%) which has more flexibility than the PARS
(19%). The membrane roof flexibility also modifies the non-Gaussian characteristic which results in a lower peak
factor than the plywood roof. It was also observed that peak pressure coefficients on the flexible roof increase at
higher wind speeds. This study provides an improved understanding of the effect of roof flexibility on wind-
induced pressure coefficients. Further research is needed by testing more types and configurations of flexible
roofs to formulate new code provisions for wind effects on flexible membrane roofs.

1. Introduction
Roofs of low-rise buildings are vulnerable to damage during extreme
wind events such as hurricanes and thunderstorms. Damage to roof
components often results in a breach in the building envelope which
subsequently creates a path for water intrusion. Such damage is mainly
caused by the formation of vortices due to flow separation resulting in
high uplifts and suctions (i.e., negative pressures) on the roof surface
[1]. The negative pressures, occurring at the windward edge and corners
of a roof, are responsible for most of the wind-induced damages [2–4].
Flexible roofing systems such as membrane roofs are widely used in low-
rise commercial and industrial buildings due to their competitive cost
and durability, accounting for over 60% of low-slope building roofs in
North America [5]. Such roofs are covered with a flexible membrane
used as the waterproofing component. However, their relative light­
weight and flexible characteristics render them more susceptible to wind
loads. Therefore, a proper estimation of the wind-induced suctions is
essential to have a more robust and safer roofing system design.
Over the last few decades, field investigations have been conducted
to investigate the wind effects on low-slope flexible roofing systems
[6–8]. Baskaran et al. [6] investigated three parameters that could in­
fluence the wind uplift performance of the fully-bonded single-ply
roofing assembly through field investigation, i.e., the curing time of the
assembly, bonding strength between the membrane and insulation
fastener plate, and insulation thickness. Bartko et al. [7] collected wind
speed, wind direction, and wind-induced pressure of low-slope

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: changda.f@gmail.com (C. Feng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112101
Received 21 October 2020; Received in revised form 24 January 2021; Accepted 18 February 2021
Available online 8 March 2021
0141-0296/Crown Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Estephan et al.
membrane roofs from field measurement in Ontario.
Compared with field measurement, the advantage of experimental
testing is the repeatability of tests with controlled conditions to better
understand the response of roofing systems to dynamic wind forces. The
National Research Council of Canada (NRC) formed an industry-based
consortium known as Special Interest Group for Dynamic Evaluation
of Roofing Systems (SIGDERS) to develop a dynamic load cycle for
evaluating the wind performance of mechanically fastened single-ply
roofing system [9–11]. Furthermore, Baskaran and Lei [10] summa­
rized that wind-induced loads on the membrane are transferred to the
supporting system through two load paths: structural and pneumatic. A
structural load path is common in a mechanically attached roof system
(MARS), where the membrane is attached to the structural support using
mechanical fasteners at discrete locations along the membrane sheet
overlaps. During windy conditions, the membrane tends to deform
creating a balloon-like shape, inducing tension at the membrane and the
attachments. A pneumatic load path is associated with partially attached
roof systems (PARS), where the latter refers to a system with an adhered
membrane over some components that are mechanically attached. In
this case, the membrane is bonded to the substrate where the load is
transferred via a pneumatic load path. Since the membrane is fully
adhered, no deformation due to wind suction can be observed. During
windy conditions, the wind pressure fluctuations are faster than the
membrane response time. Thus, the load is shared among the layers (i.e.,
membrane, cover board, insulation, and deck) by the difference in
pressure across them. Chavez et al. [8] performed in-situ wind load
measurements on a commercial building with a low-slope membrane
roof, where a section of the roof was re-roofed with a MARS and PARS. A
separate evaluation of the in-situ and wind tunnel data showed a
conclusion consistency, where the MARS experienced lower wind-
induced pressures than the PARS. Prevatt et al. [12] conducted full-
scale wind uplift pressure tests to determine the effects of varying
specimen sizes on the static wind uplift performance or failure loads of
mechanically attached single-ply roofing membranes. As of yet, no prior
study has exhaustively evaluated wind loading characteristics and per­
formed a comprehensive parametric study on full-scale membrane roof
systems using wind tunnel testing. Full-scale wind tunnel testing of
membrane roofs provides detailed modeling of geometry and con­
struction while allowing for testing at high Reynolds number (Re) to
capture the flow characteristics in nature. The full-scale wind tunnel
testing renders the effects of low-frequency turbulence eddies in the
simulated flow largely unaccounted for due to the size limitations
imposed by the wind tunnel test section. To overcome this limitation, a
partial turbulence simulation (PTS) approach was developed at Florida
International University (FIU) to analytically incorporate the effects of
the missing low-frequency turbulence in the fluctuating wind-induced
pressures measured in the wind tunnel [13,14].
In this study, the effect of roof flexibility on the wind-induced pres­
sures of a low-slope roof was investigated through experimental mea­
surement. The experimental testing was carried out at the WOW EF at
FIU on full-scale membrane roofs with different levels of flexibility.
Pressure measurements were performed on a 3.4 m × 3.4 m × 1.8 m (11
ft × 11 ft × 6 ft) mockup with detachable MARS and PARS representing
membrane roofs, and a plywood sheathing representing a rigid roof. The
wind-induced pressure coefficients were measured on the membrane
roof and compared to those on the plywood roof. The statistics of wind-
induced pressure coefficients on all three roof systems were compared
for mean, standard deviation (STD), skewness, kurtosis, and peak values.
The peak pressure coefficients are corrected by using the PTS approach
to consider the missing low-frequency turbulence in the simulated
winds. The effects of wind direction and speed on the wind-induced
pressure coefficients of membrane roofs were studied. The results of
this study allow for a better understanding of the characteristics of wind-
induced pressure on membrane roofs and designing more resistant
membrane roofing components during extreme wind events.
2
Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101
2. Methodology
2.1. Wall of Wind experimental facility (WOW EF)
Experimental testing was carried out at the NHERI WOW EF at FIU.
The 12-fan WOW is a large-scale, open jet testing facility, capable of
generating wind speeds up to 70 m/s (157 mph) and turbulence char­
acteristics similar to those recorded in Category 5 hurricanes on the
Saffir-Simpson scale [15,16]. The flow field of the WOW, which is 4.3 m
(14 ft) high and 6.1 m (20 ft) wide, is conditioned with spires and
roughness elements that help generate an open country Atmospheric
Boundary Layer. The facility is equipped with a turntable that allows for
testing at different wind directions. Fig. 1 shows the 12-fan NHERI WOW
facility at FIU.
2.2. Building model and Instrumentation
This study aims to investigate the effect of roof flexibility on the
wind-induced pressures experienced by low-sloped membrane roofs of
low-rise buildings. The roof system is full-scale and the building base
structure with a relatively smaller height was selected for testing,
satisfying the blockage requirements of the wind flow field of the 12-fan
WOW. A fixed-to-the-ground box measuring 3.4 m × 3.4 m × 1.5 m (11
ft × 11 ft × 5 ft) was built using 19 mm (0.75 in) thick plywood sheets.
Fig. 2 illustrates the flexible and rigid roof configurations. The building
base was designed to accommodate three full-scale detachable roof as­
semblies measuring 3.4 m × 3.4 m × 0.3 m (11 ft × 11 ft × 1 ft) each: (i)
mechanically attached roof system (MARS), (ii) partially adhered roof
system (PARS), and (iii) plywood roof. The MARS and PARS represent
flexible roofs whereas plywood represents a rigid roof. The wind di­
rection and surface orientation are also shown in Fig. 2.
For the flexible roof model, the components of the full-scale
detachable MARS and PARS roofs consist of the following:
(i) 45mil PVC waterproof membrane with a fastener row spacing of
Fr = 1.5 m (5 ft) and a fastener spacing of Fs = 152 mm (6 in). Me­
chanical seams, at a 1.5 m (5 ft) span, were used to overlap the location
of the mechanical attachment (shown in Fig. 3). The PARS refers to a
system with an adhered membrane to the insulation board over some
components that are mechanically attached.
(ii) 76 mm (3 in) single layer of polyisocyanurate insulation was
attached with five fasteners and metal plates per board.
(iii) 22 GA (0.7 mm) metal decks were attached to five wooden joists
that span 823 mm (2.7 ft).
The detachable rigid plywood roof model was constructed using a
layer of 19 mm (0.75 in) thick plywood sheathing attached to five
wooden joists. More details on the construction of the flexible and rigid
roof models can be found in Chavez et al. [8].
Time histories of the wind-induced pressures were collected using
two types of pressure taps: (i) inverted “U-shaped” pressure taps that are
protruded above the roof surface with a 13 mm (0.5 in) gap and (ii)
regular pressure taps that are even with the roof surface, as shown in
Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b, respectively. To consider the fluctuating deforma­
tion of the MARS and PARS, inverted “U-shaped” pressure taps were
used. Such pressure taps are glued to the flexible membrane with the
ability to move with the membrane deformation. Fig. 3 portrays the
layout of the installed pressure taps on each of the three roof assemblies.
The MARS and PARS were instrumented with a total of five inverted “U-
shaped” pressure taps (PTs) to measure the wind-induced pressures on
the membrane roofs. The location of pressure taps as well as their type
were selected based on field measurement [8]. PT1, PT2, PT3, and PT5
were placed 0.6 m (24 in) away from the roof edges, and PT4 was placed
1.2 m (48 in) away from the roof edges. The surface of the plywood roof
assembly was instrumented with a total of 113 regular pressure taps
which consist of pressure tubes that extend to the roof surface, as shown
in Fig. 3b. To assess the accuracy of the measured pressures, a calibra­
tion of the “U-shaped” taps has been performed. It consisted of
J. Estephan et al. Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101

Fig. 1. 12-fan NHERI Wall of Wind Experimental Facility, Florida International University.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Full-scale roof model for testing. (a) Flexible roof model (MARS and PARS). (b) Rigid roof model (Plywood).

(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Pressure taps layout. (a) Flexible roof model (MARS and PARS). (b) Rigid roof model (Plywood).

3
J. Estephan et al. Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101

comparing the wind-induced pressures measured by a regular pressure √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅

√
tap and those measured by an inverted “U-shaped” pressure tap on the √1 ∑ N
( )2
plywood roof, and the results are summarized in Section 3.1. CpSTD =√ CPi − Cpmean (2)
N i=1
The inverted “U-shaped” pressure taps were connected to a Setra
pressure measurement system using copper tubes to collect pressure
where N represents the number of data points in the pressure time
data at a sampling rate of 100 Hz. For the plywood roof, regular poly­
history.
urethane pressure tubes were connected to a ZOC 33 Scanivalve data
The higher-order statistical moments were used to examine the shape
acquisition system to collect pressure data at a sampling rate of 520 Hz.
of the pressure coefficient probability distribution and to determine
To account for possible distortion effects introduced by the tubing
whether it follows a Gaussian distribution or not. Skewness (γ3 ) and
length, the transfer function corrections were used to correct the pres­
kurtosis (γ4 ) are the measures of the asymmetry and tailedness of the
sure measurements from both regular and “U-shaped” pressure taps
probability distribution, respectively, and are defined as:
[17]. To ensure that the measurements with different sampling rates are
( )3
comparable, a low-pass filter function with a filtering frequency of 100 1 ∑ N
Cpi − Cpmean
Hz is applied to filter out frequencies above 100 Hz for the pressure data γ3 = (3)
N i=1 (CpSTD )3
collected by regular pressure taps. The static reference pressure is the
atmospheric pressure outside the Wall of Wind measured by Scanivalve ( )4
1 ∑N
Cpi − Cpmean
pressure static basket. γ4 = 4
(4)
N i=1
It should be noted that the pressure gradient is vital for detecting the (CpSTD )
most critical case which could not be otherwise identified with the use of The full- or large-scale wind tunnel testing of low-rise buildings
a single PT measurement. However, since the goal of the presented study provides the benefits of accurately modeling the detailed geometry and
is to compare the effect of flexible and rigid roofs on wind-induced
pressures, five pressure taps installed at the same location for the
different test cases would accomplish our goal.

2.3. Testing protocol

The three roof configurations were tested at 40% and 80% throttle of
the WOW full wind speed capacity, corresponding to 19 m/s (42 mph)
and 48 m/s (108 mph) mean wind speeds at a mean roof height of 1.83
m (6 ft), respectively. The wind speed data were recorded using the
Turbulent Flow Instrumentation Cobra Probes located at the mean roof
height. Also, model specimens were placed on the WOW turntable, and
tests were conducted for three wind directions: west (W), southwest
(SW), and south (S). Pressure time histories were recorded for one
minute at each tested wind direction. Table 1 summarizes the testing
protocol, where a total of 16 configurations were investigated.

2.4. Data analysis

The wind-induced pressure time history for each pressure tap was
collected during the experimental testing. The instantaneous pressure
coefficient CPi for each pressure tap is defined as
Pi
Cpi = 1 (1)
2
ρUmean
2

where Pi is the instantaneous pressure at i-th time step, ρ is the air

density, and Umean is the mean wind speed at the mean roof height. The
mean and peak pressure coefficients (CPmean and CPpeak ) were calculated
from each time history sample. The statistical peak pressure coefficients
are estimated using Lieblein’s best linear unbiased estimation (BLUE)
method [18] from the time history sample.
The standard deviation (STD) of the time history of pressure coeffi­
cient for each pressure tap is defined as:

Table 1
Testing protocol.
Roof configurations Test # Mean wind speed, m/s (mph) Wind directions

MARS 1 19 (42) W, SW, S

2 48 (108) W, SW, S
PARS 3 19 (42) W, SW, S
4 48 (108) W, SW, S Fig. 4. WOW open-terrain wind flow condition. (a) Normalized power spectral
Plywood 5 19 (42) W, SW, S
density of the longitudinal velocity fluctuations. (b) Normalized mean wind
6 48 (108) SW
speed and turbulence intensity profiles of WOW.

4
J. Estephan et al.
construction while allowing for testing at a high Re number to capture
the flow characteristics in nature. However, one challenge that the full-
scale wind tunnel testing encounters is the insufficient low-frequency
turbulence eddies in the simulated flow due to the size limitations
imposed by the wind tunnel test section. Fig. 4a shows the simulated
flow power spectral density (PSD) at the mean roof height with a mean
wind speed of 19 m/s (42 mph) and turbulence intensity of 8%. The
simulated PSD is compared to the full-scale spectrum from ESDU item
85020 [19] with a roughness length z0 = 0.02 m (open-terrain expo­
sure). It was observed that the high-frequency component of the tur­
bulence spectrum is fully simulated at WOW, whereas the low-frequency
part is missing compared to its full-scale counterpart. Fig. 4b shows the
normalized mean wind speed and turbulence intensity profiles of the
Wall of Wind, where Uref refers to the mean wind speed at the mean roof
height Href.
In this study, the PTS approach was used to analytically incorporate
the effects of the missing low-frequency turbulence in the fluctuating
wind-induced pressure coefficients measured from WOW. It should be
noted that the PTS approach does not compensate for the damping ef­
fects caused by the membrane deformation if the deformation is mainly
due to low-frequency turbulence. The PTS approach is based on the
quasi-steady assumption to correct the peak pressure coefficients in the
post-test numerical analysis with the consideration of the missing low-
frequency turbulence. The accuracy of the PTS method was previously
validated in Mooneghi et al. [13] and Moravej [14] by comparing peak
pressure coefficients obtained from the WOW, corrected by PTS, with
the field measurements of Silsoe cube [20] and Texas Tech University
(TTU) building [21,22].
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Validation of inverted U-shaped pressure tap
Comparative analysis was conducted between the measured wind-
induced pressures by two types of pressure taps (regular and U-shaped
pressure taps) to validate the accuracy of the pressure measurement
pertaining to the “U-shaped” tap. The rigid plywood roof was instru­
mented with both regular and “U-shaped” pressure taps at PT1 and PT2,
respectively. The two pressure taps were connected to a ZOC 33 Scani­
valve data acquisition system to collect pressure data at a sampling rate
of 520 Hz. A tubing transfer function was used to correct the collected
pressure data with a filtering frequency of 100 Hz. Wind flow having a
mean speed of 42 mph was approaching from the south (normal to the
roof edge). The wind-induced pressure coefficients on PT1 and PT2 are
expected to be identical at the south wind direction due to the symmetry
of the wind flow. Fig. 5 shows the time history of pressure coefficient Cp
Fig. 5. Comparison of Cp time history for PT1 and PT2.
5
Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101
Table 2
Statistical parameters of PT1 and PT2.
CPmean CPSTD γ3 γ4 CPpeak
Regular PT (PT1) − 0.89 0.23 0.31 3.96 − 2.09
U-shaped PT (PT2) − 0.94 0.24 0.33 4.22 − 2.19
Difference 5% 4% 6% 6% 5%
for PT1 and PT2 measured by regular and U-shaped pressure taps,
respectively. The statistical values, e.g., mean, STD, skewness, kurtosis,
and estimated peak by BLUE approach [18] of the corresponding time
history of pressure coefficient Cp are compared in Table 2. It was
observed that the pressure coefficients of regular pressure tap (PT1) and
U-shaped pressure tap (PT2) are very similar with differences ranging
between 4% and 6% for statistical values including mean, STD, skew­
ness, kurtosis, and estimated peak. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the U-shaped pressure tap can be used to accurately measure the wind-
induced pressure coefficients representative of the pressure level at the
roof surface.
3.2. Wind-induced pressure coefficient on the MARS, PARS, and plywood
3.2.1. Pressure time history
The time histories of pressure coefficients of PT1, PT2, and PT4 are
presented for the three roof configurations where wind is approaching
from the west at 42 mph, as shown in Fig. 6. Results showed that the
pressure coefficients measured at PT1 and PT4 are higher than those
measured at PT2 for the MARS, PARS, and plywood. This can be
attributed to the location of PT1 and PT4 in the flow separation region
characterized by high suction and wind turbulence, whereas PT2 is
situated in the reattachment region where negative pressure coefficients
are less pronounced. It can be seen in the time histories that the
magnitude of the peak pressure coefficient decreases with the increase of
roof flexibility, with the MARS and plywood having the lowest and
highest peak magnitudes, respectively. This phenomenon is more sig­
nificant in the flow separation region.
To better explain the reasons behind the mitigation of the wind-
induced pressures on the MARS, Fig. 7 shows screenshots of testing
videos pertaining to the MARS for the west and south wind directions at
40% and 100% throttle of the full speed. It can be seen that the mem­
brane deformation increases with the increase of wind speed, and
different deformation patterns can be observed for different wind di­
rections due to the presence of mechanical seams. It should be noted that
the “U-shaped” taps were glued to the flexible membrane and hence,
they were allowed to move with the membrane deformation. However,
at 100% throttle wind speed, some of the “U-shaped” pressure taps (i.e.,
PT1 and PT3) were damaged due to the membrane deformation
exceeding the allowed measurement range of the pressure taps. The
flexibility of the MARS helps in alleviating the external pressures due to
the deformation (i.e., ballooning) of the membrane in the flow separa­
tion region [8]. For the PARS, the deformation is limited because the
membrane is fully adhered to the insulation board, and consequently the
pressure mitigation from the ballooning effect is less significant.
3.2.2. Statistics of wind-induced pressure coefficients
To discuss the effects of roof flexibility on wind-induced pressures,
the mean, STD, skewness, kurtosis and peak of pressure coefficients were
compared for the MARS, PARS, and plywood for pressure taps at
different locations. Fig. 8a shows the mean pressure coefficient distri­
bution on the three roof assemblies for the west wind direction at 42
mph. The analysis revealed that the magnitude of the mean pressure
coefficient increases when the pressure taps are close to the separation
edge and decreases when the pressure taps are located farther away from
the separation edge. The wind flow symmetry property is well observed
and reflected on the wind-induced pressure coefficients on the MARS,
PARS, and plywood roof, where the mean pressures of PT1 and PT3 and
J. Estephan et al. Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101

Fig. 6. Pressure coefficient time history for wind from the west at 42 mph. (a) PT1. (b) PT2. (c) PT4.

Fig. 7. Membrane deformation of the MARS. (a) 40% throttle, west. (b) 100% throttle, west. (c) 40% throttle, south. (d) 100% throttle, south.

6
J. Estephan et al.
Fig. 8. Mean and STD of pressure coefficients for wind from the west at 42 mph. (a) Mean. (b) STD.
those of PT2 and PT5 are very similar.
The mean pressure coefficient slightly decreases on the MARS near
the separation edge (PT1, PT3, and PT4) due to membrane deformation
compared to the PARS and plywood roof, with the PARS having the
highest mean pressure coefficient for these pressure taps. The MARS and
PARS have higher mean pressure coefficient magnitudes than the rigid
plywood roof when pressure taps are close to the leeward side. There­
fore, the reduction of mean pressure coefficients on the flexible roof is
not observed, which is consistent with the findings of Baskaran and
Savage [23]. For the MARS, being the most flexible roof configuration,
negative mean pressure coefficients (i.e., suction) were translated into
vertical wind-induced displacements on the flexible membrane, as seen
in Fig. 7. Such displacements, in their parabolic shape, can change the
roof aerodynamics leading to a reduction in the wind loads on the
flexible membrane because they reduce the flow detachment, as
demonstrated in [24].
Fig. 8b portrays the STDs of the wind-induced pressure coefficients
on the three roof assemblies for the west wind direction at 42 mph. The
flow separation near the separation edge (PT1, PT3, and PT4) resulted in
higher pressure coefficient STDs, especially for the plywood roof. It was
noted that the membrane deformation of the flexible roof assembly plays
Fig. 9. Skewness and kurtosis of pressure coefficients for wind from the west at 42 mph. (a) Skewness. (b) Kurtosis.
7
Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101
a vital role in alleviating the pressure coefficient STD near the separation
edge. The MARS has the lowest STD, followed by the PARS, for PT1,
PT3, and PT4. The reduction in terms of pressure coefficients STD is
more than 30% and 16% for the MARS and PARS relative to the plywood
roof, respectively. This reduction is mainly due to the deformation of the
upwind portion of the membrane, which was not observed for pressure
taps located farther from the separation edge.
The skewness and kurtosis are used to examine the shape of the
pressure probability distribution and determine whether it follows a
Gaussian distribution or not. The two parameters can be used to calcu­
late the peak factor of the process with consideration of the non-
Gaussian feature, where the peak factor is defined as (peak-mean)/
standard deviation. Fig. 9 illustrates the skewness and kurtosis to eval­
uate the non-Gaussian characteristics of the wind-induced pressure co­
efficients on the MARS, PARS, and plywood for the west wind direction
at 42 mph. Results indicate that the non-Gaussian feature is more pro­
nounced for the PARS and plywood roof, especially in the reattachment
region, with the skewness and kurtosis values being higher than 0.5 and
3, respectively. The fluctuating wind-induced pressure coefficients show
different degrees of non-Gaussian properties depending on the PT
location. For instance, the plywood roof exhibits high skewness values
J. Estephan et al.
(above 0.70) in the reattachment region, while it shows the lowest
values (less than 0.34) in the flow separation region (see Fig. 9a).
Moreover, the plywood roof exhibits softening non-Gaussian charac­
teristics (kurtosis greater than 3), as shown in Fig. 9b, which is consis­
tent with the findings of Jiang et al. [25]. This indicates that the wind-
induced pressures on the plywood roof show softening non-Gaussian
properties, resulting in a higher peak factor than the Gaussian peak
factor [26]. In the case of MARS, the membrane deformation mitigates
the softening non-Gaussian properties, with the kurtosis being around 3
at all PT locations. This would result in lower peak pressure coefficients
on the MARS compared to those on the PARS and plywood. It should be
noted that the peak factors depend on the sampling length of the process.
Rizzo et al. [27] investigated the time-dependence feature of the peak
factor for a hyperbolic paraboloid roof by using different sampling
lengths.
The peak pressure coefficients were estimated using extreme value
analysis. The pressure time histories were divided into 20 independent
subintervals and the peaks were estimated using the Lieblein’s best
linear unbiased estimation (BLUE) method [18]. Fig. 10a summarizes
the estimated peak pressure coefficients on the MARS, PARS, and
plywood for the west wind direction at 42 mph. The symmetric property
in terms of peak pressure coefficients is well observed on the three roof
configurations. The magnitude of the peak pressure coefficients is the
highest at the separation edge and decreases significantly when the
pressure taps are located close to the leeward edge. It can be seen that
the roof flexibility reduces the peak pressure coefficient magnitude
when pressure taps are located near the separation edge (PT1, PT3, and
PT4). More specifically, the reductions in terms of the estimated peak
pressure coefficients of PT1, PT3, and PT4 relative to the plywood are
more than 22% and 14% for the MARS and PARS, respectively. Although
the mean pressure coefficients of PT1, PT3, and PT4 are slightly higher
on the PARS compared to the plywood roof, the reduction in STDs of
pressure coefficients on the PARS has a larger contribution to the
reduction of peak pressure coefficients. In the case of MARS, the
reduction of the mean and STD of pressure coefficients near the sepa­
ration edge leads to the reduction of the peak pressure coefficients.
Moreover, the Gaussian characteristics on the MARS reduce the peak
factor and consequently reduce the peak pressure coefficients.
To account for the missing low-frequency turbulence in the WOW
simulations, the estimated peak pressure coefficients were corrected
using the PTS approach. The pressure time histories were divided into 20
independent subintervals and the peaks were fitted using Type I extreme
value distribution. In the PTS approach, the missing low-frequency
Fig. 10. Peak pressure coefficients for wind from the west at 42 mph. (a) Estimated. (b) Corrected.
8
Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101
turbulence intensity is IuL = 15.37% and the probability of non-
exceedance per subinterval is G = 1 − Ptar 1/N’ . The target probability
of non-exceedance Ptar = 0.78, usually used in wind tunnel studies, is
adopted in this study and 1/N’ is the ratio of the time of each sub-
interval over the target time interval. In the case of a 1-min time in­
terval with N’=20, the value of 1/N’ is 0.05, yielding G = 0.0123.
Fig. 10b illustrates the corrected peak pressure coefficients for the west
wind direction at 42 mph. It should be noted that the PTS correction
does not affect the overall peak pressure coefficient distribution.
To further investigate the effect of roof flexibility on wind-induced
pressure coefficients, a spectral analysis was performed on the MARS,
PARS, and plywood for wind from the west at 42 mph. Fig. 11 portrays
the PSDs of pressure fluctuations at PT1, PT2, and PT4. At lower fre­
quency, say the non-dimensional frequency (fH/U) less than 0.2, the
energy in the PSD is lower for the case of plywood compared with that of
MARS and PARS. This indicates that the membrane deformation and
fluttering of MARS and PARS in the low-frequency range may generate
an additional low-frequency vortex which increases the energy of the
wind-induced pressure on MARS and PARS. On the other hand, at a
higher frequency where the non-dimensional frequency (fH/U) is
greater than 0.2, the PSD of plywood is higher than that of MARS and
PARS. This indicates the wind-induced pressure on the plywood roof has
larger components vibration at higher frequencies, which leads to a
higher crossing rate at a certain threshold and consequently, a larger
peak pressure coefficient. This also partially explains the higher peak
pressure coefficient on the plywood roof, as shown in Fig. 10. Fig. 11
demonstrates the effect of roof flexibility on wind-induced fluctuating
pressure coefficients, where the membrane deformation mainly miti­
gates the wind loads in the high-frequency range. The difference in the
wind-induced pressures on flexible and rigid roofs can be translated into
differences in the wind uplift resistance. These observations are in line
with those found in [28].
3.3. Effect of wind direction on the wind-induced pressure coefficients
To better understand the wind effects on flexible and rigid roof as­
semblies, south and southwest wind directions were considered. It
should be noted that the membrane seams are parallel to the wind flow
in the south wind direction while being perpendicular to the wind flow
in the west direction. Therefore, the pressure coefficient distribution for
the MARS and PARS for the south wind direction may be different from
the corresponding distribution for the west direction. The estimated and
corrected peak pressure coefficients, recorded on the MARS, PARS, and
J. Estephan et al. Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101

Fig. 11. PSD for wind from the west at 42 mph. (a) PT1. (b) PT2. (c) PT4.

Fig. 12. Peak pressure coefficients for wind from the south at 42 mph. (a) Estimated. (b) Corrected.

9
J. Estephan et al.
Fig. 13. Peak pressures for wind from the southwest at 42 mph.
plywood, are illustrated in Fig. 12 pertaining to the south wind direction
at 42 mph. The MARS experienced the lowest peak pressure coefficients,
with a reduction of more than 31% relative to the plywood. Although
the deformation patterns of the flexible roof are not similar for the west
and south wind directions, the pressure coefficient reduction on the
MARS and PARS, in the flow separation region, shows a similarity be­
tween the two wind directions.
Fig. 13 shows the estimated and corrected peak pressure coefficients
on the different roof configurations for the southwest wind direction at
42 mph. The symmetric property along the roof diagonal was observed.
The peak pressure coefficient magnitude decreased along the roof di­
agonal as pressure taps are located further away from the separation
corner. It was observed that the peak pressure coefficients on the MARS
and PARS are more than 60% higher than those on the plywood, espe­
cially at PT1, PT4, and PT5. It was noted that a cornering wind can have
a less significant effect on the plywood at the roof diagonal, while the
opposite can be seen on the MARS and PARS. Therefore, the roof flexi­
bility does not help in the reduction of peak pressure coefficients for the
southwest direction. This may be due to the complex interaction be­
tween the ballooning effect from the flexible roof and the conical
vortices from cornering winds, which requires further investigations in
Fig. 14. Corrected peak pressure coefficients on the plywood for wind from the
southwest at 42 mph.
10
Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101
future studies.
To further evaluate the effect of cornering wind on pressures expe­
rienced by the plywood roof, 113 pressure taps were installed, as shown
in Fig. 3b. Fig. 14 shows a contour plot of the corrected peak pressure
coefficients Cp,peak on the plywood roof for cornering wind. It can be seen
that there is a significant drop in the Cp,peak values along the roof diagonal
(PT1, PT4, and PT5). The highest Cp,peak values (− 2.1) were detected near
the roof edge due to the formation of conical vortices.
The highest estimated and corrected peak pressure coefficients (most
critical) among the west, south, and southwest directions for the MARS,
PARS, and plywood are displayed in Fig. 15. It is clear that the flexible
roof helps in the reduction of peak pressure coefficient magnitude,
especially for the pressure taps near the edge. For instance, the MARS
and PARS reduce more than 27% and 19% of the peak pressures,
respectively, compared to the plywood roof at PT1, PT2, and PT3. For
PT5, it is expected to experience similar peak pressure coefficients to
PT1, PT2, or PT3 when the wind is approaching from the east, north, or
northeast directions.
3.4. Effect of wind speed on the wind-induced pressure coefficients of
flexible roof
The pressure coefficients on a rigid roof are not significantly affected
by wind speed. However, this might not apply to pressure coefficients on
flexible roofs since the membrane deformation is influenced by wind
speed. To investigate the effect of wind speed on the wind-induced
pressure coefficients, experimental tests were conducted on the MARS
for mean wind speeds of 42 mph and 108 mph at the roof height in the
west direction. Considering the wind flow symmetry in the west direc­
tion, only PT1, PT2, and PT4 were selected for comparison. The mean,
STD, and peak pressure coefficients on the MARS are shown in Fig. 16.
The mean pressure coefficients Cpmean on the MARS did not show a sig­
nificant difference under the two wind speeds. However, a considerable
increase of the STD of pressure coefficients of more than 50% was
noticed for 108 mph relative to 42 mph. The highest increase in the STD
of pressure coefficient was observed near the flow separation edge at
PT1 (57%). This leads to the MARS having peak pressure coefficients
more than 40% higher for 108 mph compared to 42 mph. The dynamic
fluctuation and deformation of the flexible roof may result in a higher
wind-induced pressure at the extreme wind speed, especially near the
flow separation edge. The result also shows the Reynolds number effect
on MARS. The Reynolds numbers are Re = 4.26 × 106 and 1.1 × 107 at
42 mph and 108 mph, respectively, with the reference dimension taken
as the width of the roof (i.e., 3.4 m or 11 ft). The increase of Reynolds
numbers leads to the increase in pressure coefficients on the MARS.
J. Estephan et al. Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101

Fig. 15. Highest peak pressure coefficients (in magnitude) for all wind directions at 42 mph. (a) Estimated. (b) Corrected.

(c)
Fig. 16. Statistics of pressure coefficients on the MARS for wind from the west at 42 mph and 108 mph. (a) Mean. (b) STD. (c) Peak.

11
J. Estephan et al.
4. Conclusion
A full-scale experimental investigation was conducted at the NHERI
WOW EF to study the effect of membrane roof flexibility on wind-
induced pressures. Two of the most common membrane roof systems
with different levels of flexibility were considered in this study: me­
chanically attached roof system (MARS) and partially adhered roof
system (PARS), where MARS has more flexibility than the PARS. Wind-
induced pressure coefficients on membrane roofs were measured and
compared to those on a rigid plywood roof.
Results showed that the wind-induced pressure coefficients on the
membrane roof at the separation region decrease compared to that on
the plywood roof, with the membrane roof being more flexible and
experiencing more reduction. The membrane flexibility helps in allevi­
ating the external pressure coefficients due to the membrane deforma­
tion and fluttering in the flow separation region. A reduction of mean
pressure coefficients on the flexible roof was not observed. However, the
membrane deformation of the flexible roof helps in reducing the STD of
aerodynamic pressure coefficients near the flow separation edge. The
roof flexibility modifies the non-Gaussian characteristics of the pressure
coefficients, which leads to lower peak pressure coefficients. Overall,
these effects led to a reduction (in magnitude) in the peak pressure co­
efficients for the more flexible roofs. Although the wind-induced pres­
sure coefficient increases on the MARS and PARS at cornering winds, the
highest estimated peak pressure coefficient among three wind directions
was observed on the plywood roof. For instance, the MARS and PARS
experienced peak pressure coefficients that are 27% and 19% lower than
those on the plywood roof, respectively. The pressure coefficients on the
MARS were also studied at a higher wind speed. Higher pressure co­
efficients were observed for the higher wind speed, especially near the
flow separation edge. This can be due to Reynolds number effects and/or
increased deformation of the roof membrane under higher wind speeds.
Further research is needed to understand this effect.
It should be noted that the reduction of the wind-induced pressure
coefficients on the membrane roof is based on a quasi-static manner.
There are a dynamic aspect and a geometrical nonlinearity of the load-
bearing behavior for membrane structures. Even though wind-induced
pressure on the membrane roof decreases, the structural response may
increase with increasing roof flexibility due to the dynamic amplifica­
tion effect. Future studies need to investigate the dynamic aspect and
geometrical nonlinearity of the load-bearing behavior for membrane
structures by using load cells mounted at the roof-to-wall connections to
measure the membrane roof dynamic responses. Further research is also
warranted to test more types and configurations of flexible roofs with
the consideration of wall openings and potentially formulate new code
provisions for wind effects on flexible membrane roofs.
A proper estimation of the wind-induced suctions is vital for more
robust and safer roofing systems during extreme wind events. However,
the effects of roof flexibility are not accounted for in the current building
design codes and standards. Hence, this study provides an improved
understanding of the effect of roof flexibility on wind-induced pressure.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Johnny Estephan: Formal analysis, Data curation, Software,
Writing - original draft. Changda Feng: Supervision, Methodology,
Writing - review & editing. Arindam Gan Chowdhury: Conceptuali­
zation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing, Funding
acquisition. Mauricio Chavez: Investigation, Resources, Writing - re­
view & editing. Appupillai Baskaran: Conceptualization, Resources,
Funding acquisition. Mohammadtaghi Moravej: Data curation,
Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
12
Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The presented research is being carried out for a consortium - Special
Interest Group for Dynamic Evaluation of Roofing Systems (SIGDERS).
SIGDERS was formed from a group of partners who were interested in
roofing design. These partners included: Atlas Roofing Corporation,
Canadian Roofing Contractors’ Association, Dupont Performance
Building Solutions, Duro-Last® Roofing, Inc., EXP Inc., Firestone
Building Products Company, IKO Industries Ltd., International Institute
of Building Enclosure Consultants, Johns Manville Inc., OMG Roofing
Products, Roofing Contractors Association of British Columbia, Rock­
wool Group, Sika Sarnafil Inc., Soprema Canada Inc., SynTec Carlisle,
Tremco Inc., and Trufast Corporation. The NHERI WOW experimental
facility, used for the laboratory testing reported in this paper, is sup­
ported by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The authors would
like to acknowledge the support of NSF CAREER (Award No. 1520853)
and the Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure (NHERI)
(Award No. 1151003).
References
[1] Holmes JD. Wind Loading of Structures. 3rd ed. London: Taylor and Francis; 2015.
[2] Stathopoulos T, Baskaran A, Goh PA. Full-scale measurements of wind pressures on
flat roof corners. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1990;36:1063–72. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0167-6105(90)90103-J.
[3] Cochran LS, Cermak JE. Full- and model-scale cladding pressures on the Texas Tech
University experimental building. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1992;43:1589–600.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(92)90374-J.
[4] Feng C, Gan Chowdhury A, Elawady A, Chen D, Azzi Z, Vutukuru KS. Experimental
assessment of wind loads on roof-to-wall connections for residential buildings.
Front Built Environ 2020;6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00010.
[5] Global Industry Analysis. Roofing –Market. San Jose, CA: Global Industry Analyst;
2015.
[6] Baskaran A, Molleti S, Sexton M. Wind performance evaluation of fully bonded
roofing assemblies. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:343–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2006.08.011.
[7] Bartko M, Molleti S, Baskaran A. In situ measurements of wind pressures on low
slope membrane roofs. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2016;153:78–91. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jweia.2016.03.010.
[8] Chavez M, Baskaran A, Feng C, Gan CA. Effect of assembly construction on the
wind induced pressure of membrane roofs. Eng Struct 2020;221:110725. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110725.
[9] Savage MG, Baskaran A, Cooper KR, Lei W. Pressure distribution data measured
during the November 1994 wind tunnel tests on a mechanically-attached, PVC
single-ply roofing system. Ottawa: National Research Council Canada, Institute for
Aerospace Research; 1996.
[10] Baskaran A, Lei W. A new facility for dynamic wind performance evaluation of
roofing systems. Proc. Fourth Int. Symp. Roof. Technol., Washington, D.C, U.S.A:
NRCA/NIST; 1997, p. 168–79.
[11] Baskaran A, Chen Y. Wind load cycle development for evaluating mechanically
attached single-ply roofs. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1998;77–78:83–96. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0167-6105(98)00134-2.
[12] Prevatt DO, Schiff SD, Stamm JS, Kulkarni AS. Wind uplift behavior of
mechanically attached single-ply roofing systems: the need for correction factors in
standardized tests. J Struct Eng 2008;134:489–98. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:3(489).
[13] Mooneghi MA, Irwin P, Chowdhury AG. Partial turbulence simulation method for
predicting peak wind loads on small structures and building appurtenances. J Wind
Eng Ind Aerodyn 2016;157:47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2016.08.003.
[14] Moravej M. Investigating scale effects on analytical methods of predicting peak
wind loads on buildings. FIU Electron Theses Diss 2018.
[15] Chowdhury AG, Zisis I, Irwin P, Bitsuamlak G, Pinelli J-P, Hajra B, et al. Large-scale
experimentation using the 12-fan wall of wind to assess and mitigate hurricane
wind and rain impacts on buildings and infrastructure systems. J Struct Eng 2017;
143. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001785.
[16] Chowdhury AG, Vutukuru KS, Moravej M. Full- and Large-Scale Experimentation
Using the Wall of Wind to Mitigate Wind Loading and Rain Impacts on Buildings
and Infrastructure Systems. Proceedings of the 11th Structural Engineering
Convention (SEC18). India: Jadavpur University; 2018.
[17] Irwin P, Cooper KR, Girard R. Correction of distortion effects caused by tubing
systems in measurements of fluctuating pressures. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1979;5:
93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(79)90026-6.
[18] Lieblein J. Efficient methods of extreme-value methodology. Gaithersburg, MD:
National Bureau of Standards; 1974. https://doi.org/10.6028/NBS.IR.74-602.
J. Estephan et al.
[19] ESDU. Characteristics of the Atmospheric Boundary Layer, Part II: Single Point
Data for Strong Winds (Neutral Atmosphere). London: Engineering Sciences Data
Unit; 2001.
[20] Richards PJ, Hoxey RP. Pressures on a cubic building—Part 1: Full-scale results.
J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2012;102:72–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jweia.2011.11.004.
[21] Levitan ML, Mehta KC. Texas Tech field experiments for wind loads part 1: building
and pressure measuring system. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1992;43:1565–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(92)90372-H.
[22] Levitan ML, Mehta KC. Texas tech field experiments for wind loads part II:
meteorological instrumentation and terrain parameters. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn
1992;43:1577–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(92)90373-I.
[23] Baskaran A, Savage MG. Wind pressure measurements on full scale flat roofs.
NRCC- 46291, National Research Council Canada; 2003.
13
Engineering Structures 235 (2021) 112101
[24] Rizzo F, D’Asdia P, Ricciardelli F, Bartoli G. Characterisation of pressure
coefficients on hyperbolic paraboloid roofs. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2012;102:
61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2012.01.003.
[25] Jiang L, Li J-H, Li C. Comparative Study on Non-Gaussian Characteristics of Wind
Pressure for Rigid and Flexible Structures 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/
9213503.
[26] Ding J, Chen X. Assessment of methods for extreme value analysis of non-Gaussian
wind effects with short-term time history samples. Eng Struct 2014;80:75–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.08.041.
[27] Rizzo F, Barbato M, Sepe V. Peak factor statistics of wind effects for hyperbolic
paraboloid roofs. Eng Struct 2018;173:313–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2018.06.106.
[28] Baskaran A, Murty B, Prevatt D. Evaluating wind effects of commercial roofs: North
American advancements, Amsterdam, Netherlands: 2011.