See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257227002

A new parametric equation for the wind pressure coefficient for low-rise
buildings

Article  in  Energy and Buildings · February 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.10.051

CITATIONS READS

58 776

2 authors, including:

Ralph T Muehleisen
Argonne National Laboratory
109 PUBLICATIONS   480 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sonic Leak Quantifier View project

SonicLQ - The Sonic Leak Quantifier View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ralph T Muehleisen on 22 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A new parametric equation for the wind pressure coefficient for low-rise buildings

Ralph T. Muehleisena and Silverio Patrizib

a
Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, rmuehlesien@anl.gov
b
Thorton Tomassetti, New York, NY,silverio.patrizi@gmail.com

Abstract

The building wind pressure coefficient (Cp) is an important quantity which is used in many

fields of building engineering including heating and cooling load calculations, ventilation design

and structural design. Cp is a dimensionless quantity that represents the proportionality between

the wind velocity and the pressure generated on the surface of the building. Values for Cp can

be obtained from full scale building tests, wind tunnel tests, or, more commonly, from parametric

equations derived from tests. The purpose of this paper is to analyze a set of wind tunnel tests

and present a new set of surface averaged wind pressure coefficient values for low-rise buildings

and a new parametric equation determined from a curve fit to the surface averaged data. The

resulting equations are compared to another popular low-rise parametric equation and another

popular wind pressure coefficient database. The new parametric equation is found to fit both

databases better than the older parametric equation.

Keywords: wind pressure coefficient, parametric equations, wind load

1. Introduction

Wind is a structural load on buildings and so it is very important in structural load analysis.

For simplified and analytical wind load calculation procedures, estimations of the wind pressure

coefficients, Cp, on the façade of the building are required. Most wind load building codes [1, 2]

suggest approximate mean pressure coefficients for common building shapes. In addition to wind
load calculations, wind pressure coefficients are also required in the estimation of air infiltration

into buildings [3]. Air infiltration is highly influenced by the indoor-outdoor pressure difference

which is the sum of three components: pressure difference due to the wind, pressure difference

due to stack effect, and the pressurization of the ventilation system. To estimate the wind

induced pressure difference, the wind pressure coefficient, Cp, is required.

There are three primary methods which are usually used to estimate Cp: full-scale building

tests, wind tunnel tests, and parametric equations derived from experiments. Fully accurate

determination of the Cp for a particular building can be obtained only from full-scale tests [4, 5]

or wind tunnel tests [6, 7]. However, these kinds of tests are difficult, costly and require

significant time and expertise. For this reason, full-scale and wind-tunnel scale tests are usually

only used for very complex high-rise buildings or for the development of wind pressure

coefficient databases. The most common method for the prediction of Cp on low-rise buildings is

the use of parametric equations derived from measurements which can provide good and reliable

results if appropriately developed [6, 8, 9].

The most popular parametric equation for low rise buildings is probably that of Swami and

Chandra [10, 11]. Other authors extended this work to include the effects of nearby building

shielding [12, 13]. When shielding is taken into account, the number of variables can grow to be

quite large and developing good models becomes more difficult. Grosso’s parametric model

attempted to deal with all the possible variables, but the results were so complex that the author

himself stated that the method used was probably more interesting than the results obtained [14].

A review of several equations and methodologies was presented by Costola, Blocken and Hensen

[15]. For low-rise buildings, which constitute the overwhelming majority of all building

designed, what is needed is a set of simple to understand and implement parametric equations
that more accurately predict the performance of isolated buildings than the Swami and Chandra

equations . The effects of shielding by other buildings can then be included with simple

correction factors like the ones developed for the Swami and Chandra equation.

2. Background

Swami and Chandra developed equations for both low-rise and high-rise buildings using

step-wise regression analysis to a number of other previously published studies of wind pressure

coefficients, with the low-rise equation being a surfaced average normalized pressure coefficient.

The normalized pressure coefficient is the ratio of the actual average surface Cp to the Cp at zero

incidence angle, Cp(0). Cp(0) must be estimated by some other means, although Swami and

Chandra suggest that Cp(0)=0.6 can probably be used for all low rise buildings. The Swami

and Chandra equation for Cp is

    
Cp  Cp  0 ln 1.248  0.703sin  1.175sin 2   0.131sin 3  2G   0.769cos 0.07G 2 sin 2  0.717 cos 2  (1)
 2 2 2 2

where  is the incident angle of wind measured from the surface normal, and G=ln(S) is the

natural log of the side ratio S which is the ratio of building length to width. The overall

correlation coefficient for the regression was 0.797, indicating a fair, but not great, fit to the data.

It should be noted however that since Swami and Chandra were fitting to an amalgam of data,

rather than a single database, a correlation coefficient of 0.797 is actually quite good. Several

papers have incorrectly republished this equation as a simple expansion in terms of powers of

sin(/2) with the same coefficients seen above. The third, fifth, and seventh terms of the

equation can indeed be rewritten in terms of powers of sin(/2) using trigonometric identities,
but the but fourth cannot and, even if the other terms were rewritten, the coefficients would not

be the same.

One of the most popular databases of wind pressure coefficients is that published by the Air

Infiltration and Ventilation Centre (AIVC) [16]. The AIVC database is a combination of

different studies and presents Cp in tables as a single surface-averaged value for each face of the

rectangular and square buildings for wind directions from 0° to 315° in 45° increments. Tables of

data are available for exposed, semi-sheltered (surrounding obstacles with half of the building

height) and sheltered buildings (surrounding obstacles with the same height as the building) with

no more than three stories since this is the typical limit between low-rise and high-rise buildings.

The publically available part of the database is quite limited both in the number of side ratios and

the coarse increments of wind directions that are presented

The Tokyo Polytechnic University has recently released a large and very detailed database of

wind tunnel tests of a wide variety of low-rise buildings [17] as part of the Wind Effects on

Buildings and Urban Environment, the 21st Century Center of Excellence Program. The

database, developed primarily for structural engineering purposes, provides Cp values for a

larger range of side ratios, heights, and wind directions than the AIVC database. A variety of

data are available including surface averaged pressure coefficients, local pressure coefficient

contours, and the individual microphone time history pressure measurements. The surface

averaged pressure coefficient data are presented as plots of mean surface pressure as a function

of incident wind angle from 0° to 90° in 15° increments for all five building surfaces (four sides

and the roof), along with plots of the angle dependent RMS, maximum and minimum values.

With modern instrumentation, the Tokyo group has been able to make very detailed

measurements with a minimum of disturbance of the airflow, so we believe that this database
probably represents the most accurate set of wind tunnel tests ever published and we have thus

decided to use this database as the basis of our new parametric equation.

3. Methodology

Our new parametric equation presented was developed through curve fits to the low rise data

from the Tokyo database. The database included surface averaged wind pressure coefficient

graphs for each of the four sides of low rise buildings with depth-to-breadth short side ratios

D/B=1/1, 1.5/1, and 2.5/1 and depth-to-height ratios of D/H=1/1, 2/1, and 4/1 for wind angles of

0° to 90° in 15° increments. The geometry of the building as used in the Tokyo database and our

parametric equations is shown in Fig. 1.

H B

B
D  H

 Wind D

Figure 1: Building geometry identifying the building sides 1-4, the building dimensions D, B, and H, and the wind
angle .

With this geometry, the wind angle  is measured from the normal to side 1. Although the

model was only rotated 90, the symmetry of the building and measurements of surface pressure

on all 4 sides allows determination of the wind pressure coefficient for angles from 0° to 180°.

Since measurements were taken on all four sides, there is also some redundant data that can be

averaged for improved accuracy. For example, the wind pressure coefficient on side 2 and side 4

for a wind angle of  =0° should be identical since the wind would be grazing along the surface
of both sides 2 and 4. Similarly, the pressure coefficients on side 1 and side 3 at a wind angle of

 =90° should also be identical. We averaged the values of data that should have been identical.

Also note that by using all the measurements on side 2 and 4 one can obtain the results that

would have been obtained if the wind tunnel model would have been rotated and measured

again. This means that each measurement provides data for two different side ratios: data for

side ratio D/B comes from sides 1 and 3 and data for side ratio B/D comes from side 2 and 4,

meaning the measurements on three buildings, yields results for five different side ratios. The

resulting wind pressure coefficients obtained from side 1 and 3 measurements are shown in

Table 1 and the coefficients obtained from side 2 and 4 measurements are shown in Table 2. The

spatially averaged data from Tables 1 and 2 were then averaged over all height ratios to give

single numbers for low-rise buildings which are shown in Table 3.

Table 1: Cp as a function of wind angle , Side Ratio D/B, and Height Ratio D/H from Tokyo

low-rise wind tunnel database measurements on sides 1 and 3. The wind angle  is measured

from the normal to side 1. D is the length of sides 2 and 4 and B is the length of sides 1 and 3.

D/B D/H 0° 15° 30° 45° 60° 75° 90° 105° 120° 135° 150° 165° 180°

1.0 1.0 0.64 0.60 0.51 0.34 0.06 -0.31 -0.63 -0.71 -0.67 -0.55 -0.45 -0.36 -0.31

1.0 1.3 0.63 0.61 0.50 0.34 0.08 -0.28 -0.59 -0.71 -0.67 -0.56 -0.43 -0.34 -0.28

1.0 2.0 0.62 0.65 0.51 0.35 0.12 -0.18 -0.49 -0.66 -0.66 -0.51 -0.39 -0.32 -0.25

1.0 4.0 0.60 0.56 0.46 0.30 0.10 -0.16 -0.39 -0.54 -0.56 -0.47 -0.36 -0.30 -0.26

1.5 1.5 0.62 0.60 0.50 0.29 -0.06 -0.46 -0.71 -0.73 -0.63 -0.51 -0.45 -0.33 -0.25

1.5 2.0 0.61 0.60 0.48 0.26 -0.01 -0.36 -0.68 -0.73 -0.60 -0.49 -0.43 -0.31 -0.25

1.5 3.0 0.60 0.60 0.49 0.27 0.02 -0.26 -0.55 -0.65 -0.55 -0.43 -0.38 -0.29 -0.25

1.5 6.0 0.57 0.54 0.46 0.28 0.06 -0.20 -0.41 -0.52 -0.47 -0.39 -0.35 -0.30 -0.26

2.5 2.5 0.64 0.60 0.45 0.20 -0.18 -0.62 -0.83 -0.73 -0.58 -0.51 -0.41 -0.30 -0.22

2.5 3.3 0.66 0.62 0.48 0.21 -0.15 -0.53 -0.76 -0.75 -0.58 -0.48 -0.39 -0.28 -0.21

2.5 5.0 0.63 0.62 0.49 0.24 -0.07 -0.42 -0.70 -0.75 -0.58 -0.47 -0.37 -0.25 -0.22

2.5 10.0 0.61 0.57 0.46 0.26 0.00 -0.29 -0.51 -0.60 -0.49 -0.43 -0.39 -0.29 -0.22
Table 2: Cp as a function of wind angle , Side Ratio D/B, and Height Ratio D/H from Tokyo

low-rise wind tunnel database measurements on sides 2 and 4. The wind angle  is measured

from the normal to side 2. D is the length of sides 2 and 4 and B is the length of sides 1 and 3.

D/B D/H 0° 15° 30° 45° 60° 75° 90° 105° 120° 135° 150° 165° 180°

0.4 1.0 0.68 0.66 0.58 0.44 0.19 -0.07 -0.34 -0.57 -0.70 -0.70 -0.60 -0.47 -0.40

0.4 1.3 0.61 0.61 0.54 0.41 0.18 -0.06 -0.29 -0.49 -0.65 -0.68 -0.59 -0.46 -0.38

0.4 2.0 0.60 0.59 0.51 0.41 0.20 -0.02 -0.25 -0.36 -0.52 -0.58 -0.53 -0.41 -0.35

0.4 4.0 0.58 0.57 0.50 0.37 0.18 -0.02 -0.19 -0.27 -0.36 -0.41 -0.40 -0.34 -0.33

0.67 1.0 0.63 0.63 0.56 0.40 0.15 -0.19 -0.51 -0.68 -0.71 -0.64 -0.50 -0.38 -0.31

0.67 1.3 0.63 0.59 0.52 0.37 0.14 -0.15 -0.47 -0.61 -0.71 -0.65 -0.48 -0.35 -0.31

0.67 2.0 0.60 0.60 0.52 0.40 0.16 -0.13 -0.39 -0.54 -0.62 -0.61 -0.42 -0.30 -0.28

0.67 4.0 0.58 0.57 0.49 0.35 0.14 -0.09 -0.30 -0.40 -0.45 -0.45 -0.35 -0.27 -0.25

1.0 1.0 0.64 0.62 0.56 0.37 0.07 -0.32 -0.70 -0.73 -0.68 -0.57 -0.44 -0.34 -0.26

1.0 1.3 0.66 0.66 0.55 0.38 0.09 -0.26 -0.62 -0.72 -0.68 -0.58 -0.43 -0.33 -0.26

1.0 2.0 0.69 0.65 0.55 0.37 0.13 -0.19 -0.49 -0.68 -0.66 -0.53 -0.37 -0.29 -0.23

1.0 4.0 0.63 0.60 0.49 0.34 0.16 -0.10 -0.38 -0.52 -0.54 -0.45 -0.34 -0.30 -0.26

Table 3: Height averaged Cp as a function of wind angle  and Side Ratio D/B from Tokyo

Database.

D/B 0° 15° 30° 45° 60° 75° 90° 105° 120° 135° 150° 165° 180°

0.4 0.62 0.61 0.53 0.41 0.19 -0.05 -0.27 -0.43 -0.56 -0.59 -0.53 -0.42 -0.36

0.67 0.61 0.60 0.52 0.38 0.15 -0.14 -0.42 -0.55 -0.62 -0.59 -0.44 -0.33 -0.29

1 0.64 0.62 0.52 0.35 0.10 -0.22 -0.54 -0.66 -0.64 -0.53 -0.40 -0.32 -0.26

1.5 0.60 0.58 0.49 0.27 0.00 -0.32 -0.59 -0.66 -0.56 -0.45 -0.40 -0.31 -0.25

2.5 0.63 0.60 0.47 0.23 -0.10 -0.46 -0.70 -0.71 -0.56 -0.47 -0.39 -0.28 -0.22
 The generation of height averaged Cp allows the Tokyo data to be compared with other

databases and to generate parametric equations that give height averaged and spatially averaged

Cp. The Swami and Chandra equation, Eqn. (1), and the height averaged Tokyo data of Table 3

are plotted in Fig. (2) for side ratios of S=0.4, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0. As one can see, the Swami and

Chandra equations are not a particularly good fit to the Tokyo data, although the general trends

of the data are captured by the equation. The discrepancy between the Swami and Chandra

equation and such an accurate database is another reason to try to develop a new parametric

equation.

0.5
Cp

-0.5

0 50 100 150
Wind Angle 

Figure 2: Plot of Swami and Chandra equation, Eqn. (1), and height averaged Cp from the Tokyo Database. Eqn. (1)
for S=0.4:  S=1.0: , S=1.5 – –, S=2.5 -  - ; Tokyo data for S=0.4: , S=1.0-: , S=1.5: , S=2.5:  .

4. Results

The data of Table 3 were analyzed using the Systat TableCurve3d software package [18]

which implements a robust non-linear curve fitting routine. TableCurve3d uses a Levenburg-

Marquardt algorithm and ranks the fits according to a variety of fitting statistics including the

coefficient-of-fit R2, the F-statistic, the minimum mean square error, or other minimized error
functions. The Tokyo database values were fitted using standard least squares minimization and

an excellent fit was found to a rational equation of the form

a0  a1G  a2  a3 2  a4G

C p  G,    (2)
1  b1G  b2  b3 2  b4G

where G=ln(S) and S=D/B is the side ratio,  is the angle of wind incidence in degrees, and the

coefficients ai and bi are found in Table 4. The regression statistics are excellent with a

coefficient of determination R2 =0.993 and an F-Statistic of F=975.

Table 4: Coefficients ai and bi for Eqn. (2) and the standardized fit error.

Coefficient Value Standard Error

a0 6.12E-01 1.44E-02

a1 -1.78E-01 1.49E-02

a2 -1.15E-02 3.73E-04

a3 3.28E-05 2.56E-06

a4 1.67E-03 2.42E-04

b1 -3.12E-01 2.48E-02

b2 -1.15E-02 -1.59E-02 4.90E-04

b3 9.82E-05 5.20E-06

b4 2.15E-03 3.58E-04

A three-dimensional surface plot of Eqn. (2) is shown in Fig. 3 and line plots for select

values of S= 0.25 to S=2.5 are shown in Fig. 4.

 0.6

0.4
1
0.2
0.5
0
Cp

0
-0.2
-0.5
-0.4
-1 3
0
2 -0.6
50
100 1
150 D/B
0 atio S=
Side R
Wind Angle 

Figure 3: Three dimensional plot of the new parametric equation, Eqn (2), for spatially averaged Cp in low rise
buildings as a function of side ratio S and wind angle .

0.6 S=0.25
0.4 S=0.5
S=1.0
0.2 S=1.5
S=2.5
Cp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Wind Angle 

Figure 4: Plot of Eqn. 2 for S=0.25:  , S=0.5: – –, S=1.0: , S=1.5: –  – , S=2.5: –  –.

A plot of Eqn (2) along with the spatially averaged Cp values from the Tokyo database for

S = 0.4, 1, 1.5, and 2.0 is shown in Fig. 5. The improved quality of the fit of the new equation

compared to the Swami and Chandra equation shown in Fig. 2 is clear.

 0.5

Cp
0

-0.5

0 50 100 150
Wind Angle 

Figure 5: Plot of the new parametric equation, Eqn. (2), and surfaced averaged Cp from the Tokyo Database. Eqn.
(2) for S=0.4:  S=1.0: , S=1.5 – –, S=2.5 -  - Tokyo Cp data for S=0.4: , S=1.0-: , S=1.5: , S=2.5:  .

The predictions of the equation are compared to the height averaged Tokyo low-rise

database, predictions from the Swami and Chandra low-rise equation and the AIVC database at

wind angles =0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, and 180° for a side ratio of S=1.0 in Table 5 and are plotted

in Figure 6.

Table 5: Comparison Between evaluation of Cp using Eqn. (1) , Swami and Chandra’s Equation,

and the values from the Tokyo and AIVC databases for side ratios S=D/B=1.0.

Equation/Database  = 0°  = 45°  = 90°  =135°  = 180°

AIVC Database 0.70 0.35 -0.50 -0.40 -0.20

Height Avg. Tokyo Database 0.639 0.351 -0.536 -0.528 -0.263

New Equation 0.612 0.332 -0.424 -0.525 -0.296

Swami and Chandra 0.603 0.323 -0.443 -0.535 -0.364

 0.5

Cp
0

-0.5

0 50 100 150
Wind Angle 

Figure 6 : Comparison of Cp values for S=1.0. Swami and Chandra, Eqn. (1): , new parametric Eqn. (2): ,
Tokyo surfaced average data: , and AIVC data: .

5. Discussion

The new rational equation, Eqn. (1), is a smooth function in both  and G=ln(S). The

equation has a clear limit of Cp (a0+ a1G)/(1+ b1G) as 0 but does break down as S0.

However, it should be noted that S0 is not a valid geometry, indeed the practical lower limit of

S is probably about 0.1. With an R2=0.992, the new parametric equation is clearly a very good

representation of the height averaged Tokyo database which can also be seen in Fig 4. Fig. 3, the

three dimensional plot of Eqn. (2) can be used for rough prediction of Cp for a wide variety of S

and  while Fig. 4 can be used for more accurate determination of Cp for a wide range of  but

limited values of S. Fig. 5 shows that both equations fit the Tokyo database measurements well

for S=1.0; indeed the Swami and Chandra appear to be a better fit for 90 <  < 165. This might

explain the continued popularity of the Swami and Chandra equations because S=1.0 is such

commonly used side ratio. However, the new parametric equations seem be a better match the

AIVC database than the Swami and Chandra equation for S=1.0.
 6. Example

As an example of how this new equation might be used and how much of a difference the

new equation can make, consider finding the wind pressure coefficients on all four sides of a

low-rise building with a breadth of 20 m and a depth of 30 m and wind incident at an angle of 30

degree from normal on one of the 20 m sides. Referring to Fig. 1, we find Cp for side 1 by using

D/B=30/20=3/2 and =30; we find Cp for side 3 using D/B=3/2 and =150; we find Cp for

side 2 using D/B=20/30=2/3 and =120; and we find Cp for side 4 using D/B=2/3 and =60.

The resulting Cp directly from the Tokyo database (Table 3), the Swami and Chandra equation

and the new parametric equation are shown in Table 6. While both the new parametric equation

and the Swami and Chandra equation match the Tokyo database for side 1, the Swami and

Chandra equation is significantly different from the Tokyo database for sides 2, 3, and 4. Using

the Tokyo database as a reference, we can see that the new parametric equation is far more

accurate than Swami and Chandra for the typical use of determining wind pressure coefficients

of a low-rise building.

Table 6: Example of computing Cp for a 3020 m low-rise building with wind incident at a 30 angle from the
normal of Side 1. The new parametric equation values and Swami and Chandra equation are compared to the measured
values of Tokyo database.

Side D/B  [] Tokyo Parametric % Diff Swami % Diff

Side 1 3/2 30 0.485 0.478 -1.6 0.471 -2.9

Side 2 2/3 120 -0.624 -0.568 -9.0 -0.958 53.4

Side 3 3/2 150 -0.401 -0.412 2.7 -0.293 -27.0

Side 4 2/3 60 0.147 0.152 3.7 0.092 -37.1

 7. Conclusions

The purpose of this work was to analyze the Tokyo wind pressure coefficient database to

create a new set of spatially averaged wind pressure coefficients for low-rise buildings and to

develop a new predictive equation based on the new coefficients. The spatially averaged wind

pressure coefficients with side ratios of S=0.4, S=0.667, S=1.0, S=1.5 and S=2.0 over a range of

incident wind energy angles of 0° to 180° were averaged for several height ratios. These data

were used to generate a new rational polynomial parametric equation for the prediction of

spatially-averaged wind pressure coefficients for low-rise buildings. The new parametric

equation fit the Tokyo database values with a goodness-of-fit R2=0.992. Compared to the popular

equation of Swami and Chandra, the new equation provides a better match to both the Tokyo

database coefficients and to the AIVC database coefficients and is easier to calculate by hand or

with a spreadsheet than the Swami and Chandra equations. Used in a typical example, the new

parametric equation is also shown to be more accurate than the Swami and Chandra equation.

The new parametric equation should be useful to both structural and HVAC engineers and easy

to implement in hand, spreadsheet, and computer calculations.

 1.4 References

[1] A.S. 7-05:, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American

Society of Civil Engineers, 2005.

[2] EN 1991-1-4:2005, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions - Wind

actions, CEN, 2005.

[3] ASHRAE, Ventilation and Infiltration, in: 2009 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals,

American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA,

2009.

[4] J.D. Ginger, C.W. Letchford, Net pressures on a low-rise full-scale building, Journal of

Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 83 (1-3) (1999) 239-250.

[5] T. Ohkuma, H. Marukawa, Y. Niihori, N. Kato, Full-scale measurement of wind

pressures and response accelerations of a high-rise building, Journal of Wind Engineering and

Industrial Aerodynamics, 38 (2-3) (1991) 185-196.

[6] R. Akins, Wind pressures on buildings, Colorado State University, 1976.

[7] M. Hussain, B. Lee, A wind tunnel study of the mean pressure forces acting on large

groups of low-rise buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 6 (3-4)

(1980) 207-225.

[8] G. Walton, Airflow and multiroom thermal analysis, ASHRAE Transactions, 88 (1982)

78-91.
 [9] I.S. Walker, D.J. Wilson, Practical methods for improving estimates of natural ventilation

rates, in: The Role of Ventilation - 15th AIVC Conference, Buxton, UK, 1994, pp. 517-517.

[10] M.V. Swami, S. Chandra, Procedures for calculating natural ventilation airflow rates in

buildings, ASHRAE Final Report FSEC-CR-163-86, ASHRAE Research Project, (1987).

[11] M.V. Swami, S. Chandra, Correlations for pressure distribution on buildings and

calculation of natual-ventilation airflow, ASHRAE Transactions, 94 (1988) 243-266.

[12] T. Sawachi, E. Maruta, Y. Takahashi, K. Sato, Wind Pressure Coefficients for Different

Building Configurations with and without an Adjacent Building, International Journal of

Ventilation, 5 (1) 21-30.

[13] A. Sharag-Eldin, A parametric model for predicting wind-induced pressures on low-rise

vertical surfaces in shielded environments, Solar Energy, 81 (1) (2007) 52-61.

[14] M. Grosso, Wind pressure distribution around buildings: a parametrical model, Energy

and Buildings, 18 (2) (1992) 101-131.

[15] D. Cóstola, B. Blocken, J.L.M. Hensen, Overview of pressure coefficient data in

building energy simulation and airflow network programs, Building and Environment, 44 (10)

(2009) 2027-2036.

[16] M.L. Orme, N. Leksmono, AIVC Guide 5: Ventilation Modelling Data Guide, AIVC,

2002.

[17] Tokyo Polytechnic University, Aerodynamic Database of Low-Rise Buildings, Last

Accessed 04-Mar-2011,
 http://www.wind.arch.t-kougei.ac.jp/info_center/windpressure/lowrise/mainpage.html.

[18] Systat Software Inc., TableCurve 3D V4.0, 2002.

View publication stats