31295019407617

UNCERTAINTIES IN PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
DERIVED FROM FULL AND MODEL SCALE DATA
by
FEI LONG, B.S.
A THESIS
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University m
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Approved
Ch&irperson of the Committee
Accepted
Dean of the Graduate School
August, 2004
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Douglas A. Smith, chairman of
my committee, for his valuable guidance and objective supervision throughout my entire
graduate career. Special thanks is extended to Dr. Kathleen Gilliam for her help and
guidance during the course of the research. I also would like to express my thanks to Dr.
Kishor C. Metha and Dr. Chris Letchford for serving on my thesis committee.
I also want to thank all of the technicians who took the WERFL, CSU, UWO
building test and data collection. They provided data for my thesis. I would particularly
like to thank Stephen Morse and Russell R. Carter for their generous help and technical
assistance.
Finally, I wish to thank the Civil Engineering Department and the Wind Science
and Enghieering Research Center for supporting me during my studies at Texas Tech
University.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11
ABSTRACT Vll
LIST OF TABLES VIU
LIST OF FIGURES x
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objective and Scope 2
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Formulation of Wind Loads Incorporating Uncertainties 4
2.2 Previous Research on Comparison of Full and Model Scale data 5
2.3 Esthnation of Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients 7
2.3.1 The Introduction to Method I 8
2.3.2 The Introduction to Method II 13
2.3.3 The Introduction to the Probability Function 17
2.3.4 The Introduction to the Roughness Length Calculation 22
III. TEST FACILITIES AND TARGET FLOW SIMULATION DATA
3.1 The Full Scale Facility 25
3.1.1 Meteorological Tower 26
3.1.2 Terrain and Site Characteristics 27
111
3.1.3 Pressure Taps Locations 32
3.1.4 Data Acquisition System 35
3.2 UWO and CSU Wind Tunnel Models 35
3.3 Wind Tunnel Test Facilities and Flow Simulations 40
3.3.1 UWO Test Facilhy & Flow Simulation 40
3.3.2 TTU Test Facility & Flow simulation 42
3.3.3 CSU Test Facility & Flow Simulation 45
IV. THE UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH WIND TUNNEL

PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS 47
4.1 Uncertainties Associated With Repeatability 49
4.2 Uncertainties Associated with Model Building 59
4.2.1 The Comparison of Mean, Standard deviation, Maximum
and Minimum Pressure Coefficients between Two Models 60
4.3 Uncertainties Associated with Wind Tunnel Facilities 68
4.4 Uncertainties Associated with Estimation Techniques for The

Extreme Value Statistics. 75
4.4.1 The Comparison for the Structure Load Model 76
4.4.2 The Detailed Comparison for CSU Model 80
4.5 The Combined Uncertainties of Model-Building and Estimate

Technique 82
4.6 Total Uncertainties Associated with Wind-Tunnel Testing 87
V. THE UNCERTAINTIES DERIVED FROM FULL SCALE AND WIND

TUNNEL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS COMPARISON 88
5.1 Uncertainties in Mean, Standard Deviation, Maximum and Minhnum

Single Largest Pressure Coefficients between Full and Model Scale 89
IV
5.2 Comparison of Estimated Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients 96
5.2.1 The Comparison of Individual Tap Estimated Mean Extreme

Pressure Coefficient between Full and Model Scale 98
5.2.2 The Comparison Based on the Moving Averaged
Time Series 100
5.2.3 The Comparison Based on 20 Independent Full Scale Runs 106
5.2.4 Comparison Based on the Area Averaged Time Series 107
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 112

6.1 Conclusion 112
6.1.1 Uncertainties Associated with Wind Tunnel Pressure

Coefficients 112
6.1.2 Uncertainties Derived from Full-scale and Wind Tunnel

Pressure Coefficient Comparison 114
6.2 Recommendations for Further Research 115
REFERENCE 116
APPENDDC
A. Graphs for the Comparison of Mean Extreme Max & Min Pressure
Coefficients for CSU & UWO Model by Two Methods 119
B. Comparison Graphs and Best-Fit Probability Distributions to Build

Wind Turmel Uncertainties 129
C. Graphs and Data for the Comparison of Model Scale and Full Scale
Pressure Coefficient Statistics 167
D. Graphs for the Comparison of Model Scale and Full Scale Mean
Extreme Pressure Coefficients 202
E. Graphs for the Comparison of Model Scale and Full Scale Area
Averaged Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients 223
F. WERFL Tap Designation and Exact Locations 248
G. Wind Tunnel and WERFL Flow Simulation Data 256
VI
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to build the uncertainties associated with the wind tunnel
testing and fiill-scale to wind tunnel pressure coefficient extrapolation by comparing the
model and fiill-scale pressure coefficients. Two types of comparisons were made: one is
the comparison between the two models CSU & SLM, and the other is the comparison
between the models and fiill-scale (WERFL). For each case, both the observed statistics
(i.e., mean, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum Cp) and estimated mean
extreme Cp are analyzed. Two methods are used to obtain the estimated mean hourly
extreme pressure coefficients.
For the first case, the uncertainties according to repeatability, model-building, use of
different wind tuimels, and estimation techniques for pressure coefficients statistics (i.e.,
both observed statistics and estimated mean extreme Cp) were estimated.
For the second case, the pressure coefficients statistics (i.e., both observed statistics
and estimated mean extreme Cp) of model and full-scale records achieved for a
comparison. Individual tap time series as well as the area average and moving average
time series were used to establish the uncertainties.
The best-fit (Palisade Corporation, 1993) program is used to obtain best-fit
probabilhy denshy function and summary statistics for the error terms of all observed
statistics comparison.
vu
LIST OF TABLES
3.1 Summary Statistics for The 10"' and 90"' Percentile WERFL Profiles 30
3.2 Summary Statistics for The lO"' and 90"' Percentiles WERFL Velocity Profiles 30
4.1 The Model and Wind Tunnel Facilhies Used to Establish Uncertainty of
Repeatability 48
4.2 The Model and Wind Tunnel Facilhies Used to Establish Uncertainty of
Model-Building 48
4.3 The Model and Wind Tuimel Facilities Used to Establish Uncertainty of Wind
Turmel Simulations 48
4.4 The Model and Wind Turmel Facilities Used to Establish Uncertainty of
Estimation Techniques 48
4.5 The Model and Wind turmel Facilities Used to Establish Combined Uncertainties
of Model-Building and Estimation Techniques 48
4.6 The Statistic for Original-Repeat Run Error Term 58
4.7 TheDefmitionof Parameters for Probability Density Functions 59
4.8 Coordinate Difference for 29 Selected Taps 60
4.9 The Statistic for UWO-CSU Model Error Term 67
4.10 The Statistic for UWO-TTU Error Term 73
4.11 The Statistic for TTU-CSU Error Term 74
4.12 The Statistic for CSU-UWO Error Term 74
4.13 The Statistic for UWO-CSU-TTU Error Term 75
4.14 The Statistic for Observed-Method 1 Error Term 79
4.15 The Statistic for Observed-Method 2 Error Term 79
4.16 The Statistic for Method 2-Method 1 Error Term 80
viu
4.17 Coordinate Difference for 29 Selected Taps 83
4.18 Total Uncertainties in Wind Tunnel Testing 87
5.1 The Model and Wind Tunnel Facilities Used to Establish Uncertainty
in Section 5.1 88
5.2 The Model and Wind Timnel Facilhies Used to Establish Uncertainty
in Section 5.2 89
5.3 Statistics for Error Histogram and PDF Distribution 96
5.4 The Compassion between Model and Full Scale Hourly Mean Extreme Cp 107
F. I WERFL Tap Designations and Exact Locations 246
G. 1 TTU 1:100 90 Percentile Data 255
G.2 TTU 1:100 10 Percentile Data 255
G.3 UWO 1:100 90 Percentile Data 256
G.4 UWO 1:100 10 Percentile Data 256
G.5 CSU 1:100 90 Percentile Data 257
G.6 CSU 1:100 10 Percentile Data 257
G.7 Boundary Layer Simulation Based upon Empirical Relations for FuU-Scale Data 257
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 20 Single Largest Pressure Coefficients Fh to FTl Distribution 11
2.2 Mapping Procedure for a Point from Non-Gaussian Process x(t) to

Gaussian Process y(t) (Sadek, 2002) 16
2.3 Linear Regressions of Full-Scale Run 1278 23
3.1 WERFL Test Building and Meteorological Tower 27
3.2 Map of Field Site and Surrounding Terrain 28
3.3 Turbulence Intensity Profile for WERFL Building 31
3.4 Velochy Profile by Power Law for WERFL Building 31
3.5 Wind Azhnuth and Angle of Attack for WERFL Building. 33
3.6 WERFL Building 34
3.7 WERFL Building-Structtiral Load Model 36
3.8 WERFL Building-CSU Model 39
3.9 Turbulence Intensity Profiles for UWO and WERFL 41
3.10 Velocity Profiles for UWO and WERFL (VA^ (§33ft) 42
3.11 Texas Tech Wind Tunnel Facility (Elevation View) 43
3.12 Texas Tech Wind Turmel 43
3.13 Turbulence Intensity profiles for TTU and WERFL 44
3.14 Velocity Profiles for TTU and WERFL (VA^ (^33ft) 44
3.15 Turbulence Intensity Profiles for CSU and WERFL 45
3.16 Velocity Profiles for CSU and WERFL (VAA @33ft) 46
4.1 The Comparison of Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients between Original

and Repeated Runs for UWO(SLM) 51
4.2 Logistic Disfi-ibution (-1.32e-3,6.36e-3) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram 51
4.3 Logistic Distribution (1.06e-4,6.14e-3) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram

(Quadrant 1) 52
4.4 Logistic Disti-ibution (-1.76e-3, 6.52e-3) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram

(Quadrant 3) 52
4.5 Comparison of Standard Deviation Pressure Coefficients between Original

and Repeated Runs for UWO(SLM) 53
4.6 Eriang Disfi-ibution (24.00, 1.20e-3) + -2.69e-2 Fits to SD Cp Error Histogram 54
4.7 Comparison of Maximum Pressure Coefficients between Original and
Repeated Runs for UWO(SLM) 54
4.8 Logistic Disti-ibution (-3.03e-3, 7.49e-2) Fits to Max Cp Error Histogram 55
4.9 Logistic Distiibution (-8.19e-3,7.96e-2) Fits to Max Cp Error Histogram

(Quadrant 1) 55
4.10 Logistic Distribution (-5.86e-3,2.58e-2) Fits to Max Cp Error Histogram
(Quadrant 3) 56
4.11 Comparison of Minimvim Pressure Coefficients between Original and
Repeated Runs for UWO(SLM) 56
4.12 Logistic(-9.76e-3,0.12) Distribution Fits to Min Cp Error Histogram 57
4.13 The Comparison of Mean Cp between UWO (CSU) and UWO (SLM) Models 61
4.14 The Comparison of SD Cp between UWO (CSU) and UWO (SLM) Models 62
4.15 The Comparison of Maximum Cp between UWO (CSU) and UWO (SLM)
Models 62
4.16 The Comparison of Minimum Cp between UWO (CSU) and UWO (SLM)
Models 63
4.17 Logistic Distribution (1.83e-2, 2.44e-2) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram 64
4.18 Normal Distribution (1.16e-2, 7.12e-2) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram

(Quadrant 1) 65
XI
4.19 Logistic Distribution (2.1 le-2, 1.72e-2) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram
(Quadrant 3) 65
4.20 Logistic Distribution (-6.61e-4, 1.16e-2) Fits to SD Cp Error Histogram 66
4.21 Logistic Distribution (-2.23e-2, 0.15) Fits to Max Cp Error Histogram 66
4.22 Logistic Disfi-ibution (-5.00e-2, 0.19) Fits to Min Cp Error Histogram 67
4.23 The Comparison of Mean Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel 69
4.24 The Comparison of SD Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel 70
4.25 The Comparison of Max Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel 70
4.26 The Comparison of Min Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel 71
4.27 Logistic Distribution (6.90e-2, 8.66e-2) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram

for TTU-CSU 71
4.28 Logistic Disti-ibution (-3.15e-3, 2.49e-2) Fits to SD Cp Error Histogram

for TTU-CSU 72
4.29 Logistic Distribution (0.15, 0.17) Fits to Max Cp Error Histogram for
TTU-CSU 72
4.30 Logistic Distribution (6.58e-2, 0.24) Fits to Min Cp Error Histogram for
TTU-CSU 73
4.31 The Comparison of Mean Extreme Max Cp by Method I and Observed Max 77
4.32 The Comparison of Mean Extreme Min Cp by Method I and Observed Min 78
4.33 Logistic Distribution Fits (2.74e-3, 3.90e-2) to Observed-Method 1 Max Cp

Error Histogram 78
4.34 Logistic Distribution (-2.1 le-3, 7.61e-2) Fits to Observed-Method 1 Min Cp

Error Histogram 79
4.35 Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients by Two Estimation Methods VS Two

Standard Deviation from Single Largest Cp 81
4.36 Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients by Two Estimation Methods VS Two

Standard Deviation from Single Largest Cp 82
xu
4.37 Mean Exfi-eme Max «feMin Pressure Coefficients Comparison for
CSU & UWO Smooth Model by Two Methods 85
4.38 Mean Exti-eme Pressure Max &Min Coefficients Comparison for

CSU & UWO Rough Model by Two Methods 85
4.39 Mean Exti:eme Max «feMin Pressure Coefficients Comparison of

CSU&UWO; 45AOA; Smooth 86
4.40 Mean Extieme Pressure Max &Min Coefficients Comparison of

CSU&UWO; 270 AOA; Smooth 86
5.1 Comparison of Mean Cp between Average Model Scale and Full Scale for
Tap 10013(203) 91
5.2 Comparison of SD Cp between Average Model Scale and Full Scale for Tap
10013(203) 91
5.3 Comparison of Max Cp between Average Model Scale and Full Scale for Tap
10013(203) 92
5.4 Comparison of Min Cp between Average Model Scale and Full Scale for Tap
10013(203) 92
5.5 Logistic(0.14,0.12) Distribution Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram of Full Scale-

Wind Turmel Comparison 94
5.6 Beta(32.18,11.08) * 1.80 + -1.38 DistributionflFitsto SD Cp Error Histogram of

Full Scale-Wind Tunnel Comparison 94
5.7 Logistic(0.25,0.18) Distribution Fits to Max Cp Error Histogram of Full Scale-

Wind Tunnel Comparison 95
5.8 Logistic(0.66,0.63) Distribution Fits to Min Cp Error Histogram of Full Scale-

Wind Turmel Comparison 95
5.9 Three Model Comparison of Tap 22008(708) under 315 Degree AOA by
Using Method I 99
5.10 Three Model Comparison of Tap 22008(708) under 315 Degree AOA by
Using Method II 100
5.11 Moving Average Time Series for Full Scale Data 103
Xlll
5.12 Original Time Series for Full Scale Data 103
5.13 Three Model Comparison of Taps 11508(114) under 0 Degree AOA by Using
Method I 104
Method II 105
Method I (Moving Average). 105
Method II (Moving Average). 106
5.17 SLM-6 Area 109
5.18 Three Model Comparison of Area 4 under 315 Degree AOA by Using
MetiiodI 110
5.19 Three Model Comparison of Area 4 under 315 Degree AOA by Using
Method II 111
XIV
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The characteristics of the wind, and thus the wind-induced pressures, acting on a
sti-ucture are random in nature; therefore, the wind and wind-induced pressures are best
described in terms of probability. The fact that a load parameter, such as a mean pressure
coefficient, can take on a range of values implies that there is uncertainty in the estimate
of the wind loads. The sources of uncertainty in wind loads are extensive and include the
wdnd climate, the flow characteristics, and the pressure coefficients. This uncertainty is
incorporated in the Load and Resistance Factor Design Philosophy by using load factors
coupled with resistance factors (to model the uncertainties in resistance) in order to
achieve a risk consistent design. Procedures to establish load and resistance factors are
well established and given in structural reliability texts.
For the design of components and cladding for structures, a significant source of
uncertainty is the estimated mean extreme pressure coefficient used to establish the wind
design pressure. This pressure coefficient is a fimction of the component location on the
building, the turbulence characteristics of the wind, and the effective wind area associated
with the component. These component and cladding pressure coefficients are established
using wind tunnel data collected on model scale buildings. Since a plethora of wind
tunnels generate data that may be used in reductive standards and codes, additional
uncertainties are introduced into the component and cladding pressure coefficients. These
imcertainties arise from differences in flow simulation, data acquisition systems used to
collect the data, the teclmiques used to compute the mean extreme pressure coefficients,
repeatability of results, and possibly due to model building techniques. To ftirther
complicate the matter, there are uncertainties associated with extrapolating from model-
to full-scale loads.
As part of the National Institute for Standards and Technology Wind Mitigation
Initiative, researchers at Texas Tech University are undertaking a project to establish the
uncertainties in v^nd turmel modeling that arise from repeatability, varying flow
simulations in the different wind turmels, model building techniques, as well as the
uncertainty of extrapolating model-scale results to hall-scale loads. This thesis begins the
process of quantifying these uncertainties by comparing pressure coefficients statistics
obtained on two models of Texas Tech University's Wind Science and Engineering full-
scale test building with each other and with those obtained on the full-scale Wind
Engineering Research Field Laboratory (WERFL) building.
1.2 Objectives and Scope
The objective of this work is to begin the process of establishing the uncertainties in
the resuhs of wind tunnel modeling for point and area average pressures arising from two
aspects:
1. The uncertainties associated with wind tunnel pressure coefficients
2. The uncertainties derived from full-scale and wind tunnel pressure coefficient
comparison
Uncertainties associated with wind tunnel testing are for:
1. Repeatability
2. Model building
3. Use of different wind tunnels (flow simulation and data acquisition systems)
4. Estimation techniques for mean extreme peak pressures.
Finally, these four uncertainties were combined to build the overall wind tunnel
uncertainties.
The comparison is based on two wind tunnel models tested in three different wind
tunnel facilities. A 1:100 scale model was buih at Colorado State University (CSU-
model) and a 1:100 scale model was buih at University of West Ontario (SLM-model).
These two models were tested in the same fiall-scale wind conditions for two different
upstream terrain exposures at three different wind tunnels (UWO, CUS and TTU).
The following chapters examine the uncertainties in model to full-scale extrapolation.
The full-scale data was taken from Texas Tech University's Wind Engineering Research
Field Laboratory (WERFL).
Uncertainties associated with model to full-scale extrapolation are tested by two
steps.
First, the summary statistics for pressure coefficients of selected taps from wall and
roof used for a general comparison. Then the mean extreme pressure coefficients of
several taps are chosen for further research. To establish the uncertainty, individual taps,
area average taps, and moving average taps mean extreme pressure coefficients
comparisons are used.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Formulation of Wind Loads Incorporating Uncertainties
The estimation of wind loads and reliability of structures under strong wind has been
investigated extensively during the last few decades; however, in the ASCE 7-98
Standard and its predecessors, load factors are calculated as the ratio between point
estimates of 500 and 50-year wind loads without accounting for knowledge uncertainties.
Some previous researches of these uncertainties have done and one of them is briefly
introduced below.
According the paper of Minciarelli et al. (2001) these uncertainties are considered:
1. testing in different wind tunnel,
2. wind tunnel testing versus fiill-scale testing,
3. terrain roughness,
4. observation errors,
5. conversion of aerodynamic pressure into structural effects, and
6. the influence of record length to wind speed estimating.
The influences of these uncertainties on load factor and peak wind load effect are
investigated.
The sixth factor is regarded as the most important variability among those factors.
The terrain roughness, however, does not affect the final resuhs that obvious according to
author's observation.
In this thesis, it is our interest to continue to research the influence of some
imcertainties on the model test and also on model to full-scale comparison by using ftill-
scale data as "ground true."
2.2 Previous Research on Comparison of Full and Model Scale data
In recent years, there have been a significant number of papers published comparing
full-scale and wind tunnel model comparison with emphasis on the observed resuhs. The
following is an introduction to this research.
Okada, H. (1992) compared mean, rms, and observed peak wind-pressure
coefficients for both a model and for the WERFL building. The results indicated a good
agreement in terms of mean wind pressure coefficient but a large difference for the peak
and rms wind pressure coefficient. The full-scale, low-rise building used came from
Texas Tech University (Levitan, 1989). The model-scale tests were carried out at the
Building Research Institute in Japan in order to verify techniques for wind turmel testing
for low-rise building. Three scales models, 1:65, 1:100, and 1:150, were used in the tests.
Okada believes the frequency-response characteristic of the data acquisition system is
one of the most important factors in the observed difference on the rms and peak wind
pressure coefficient.
Dalgliesh, W.A. (1979) also gave a paper that deals with the comparison between a
57 story building in Toronto and wind tunnel resuhs from tests in the 9 x 9 m wind tunnel
at the National Research Council of Canada. A generally good fit for the mean value and
standard deviation of surface pressure fluctuation was obvious; however, the fit for the
peak pressure was not so good. Dalgliesh believes that is because it is difficuh to find a
representative value and because the unusually high peaks, occasionally found in fiill
scale (Eaton, 1976), might not be reproduced or detected at model scale.
Bienkiewicz (1992) performed studies of wind loading on a 1:25 geometrical scale
model of the Texas Tech University test building in a boundary-layer wind tunnel. The
investigation focused on the pressure disfi-ibution on the windward corner region of the
roof He offered tiiis conclusion: "v^nd-tunnel data showed good agreement with field
data for the mean and positive peak pressures. The negative peak pressure measured in
the wind tunnel underestimated the field data." His research also proved the longitudinal
turbulence intensity and the integral scale of oncoming flow affected the roof pressure
distribution, especially in the region close to the roof edge. An increase of turbulence
intensity and integral length scale resulted in a significant increase in the fluctuating
pressure with no substantial change in the mean pressure.
Based on the Aylesbury experimental house, full-scale pressure data, and pressure
data from models built at the University of Western Ontario and three other wind turmels,
Vickery (1985) presented a paper to discuss the comparison between model and full-scale
buildings as well as a comparison among different models. They indicted the wind turmel
pressure data are significantly lower than the corresponding fiill-scale pressure data. A
more detailed examination of the minimum pressures was then performed and revealed
that the major differences occur near the region of separation, where the suction obtained
in full scale are generally greater than those measured in the wind tunnel.
Except for the studies which concern only the mean, rms and single largest pressure
coefficients, this thesis also build the uncertainties based on the estimated mean extreme
pressure coefficients of model and full-scale, low-rise building.
Sadek (2002) and Letchford (1993) both noticed the estimated peak pressure
coefficients provide a more stable value compared to the observed peaks because the
estimated mean extieme values are based on the fiall time series information.
Furthermore, it provides a fairer comparison with wind turmel model test results, which
are based on the average of many runs.
2.3 Estimation of Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients
Two methods are commonly used to establish the mean extreme pressure coefficients,
one described in Sadek (2000) and one described in Letchford (1993).
The first method described by Letchford (1993) extracts a certain number of largest
independent peaks from the time series and fitting these peaks to a Fisher-Tippett type 1
(FTl) extreme value distribution where the mode and dispersion of the distribution are
computed and then used to compute the estimated mean extieme peak pressure
coefficient.
Sadek (2002) suggested another procedure to obtain estimated peaks for low-rise
building whose time series is generally non-Gaussian. By using the probability plot
correlation coefficient method, it is found that a gamma distribution and a normal
distiibution are appropriate for estimating the peaks con-esponding, respectively, to the
longer and shorter tail of the time series' histogram. And then by using the standard
translation processes approach it is possible to get the estimated mean extreme pressure
coefficient. The estimated peaks achieved use the whole time series, so they are more
stable than estimates based on observed single largest peaks.
The intioduction of these two methods in detail is then given in the following two
sections, ft is necessary to mention except for the mean extreme pressure coefficients are
analyzed for specific taps under certain wind angle of attack. Due to the limited time and
data availability, other pressure coefficients statistics which include mean, standard
deviation, single largest maximum and minimum pressure coefficients are also studied
for large range of taps under all available wind angle of attack to build the uncertainties.
2.3.1 The Introduction to Method I
It has been normal to use a single sample of peak pressure coefficient from a time
series to estimate the effective pressure on the building; however, an estimated mean
extreme pressure coefficient has advantages over a single observed peak value. An
estimated mean extreme pressure coefficient can provide a more stable estimation of peak
pressure coefficient, and since the wind tunnel model result comes from the average of
many runs, it can bring a more fair comparison between a full-scale and wind turmel
model.
Previous research has shown that the extreme value type 1 distribution is a good fit to
the peaks of wind induced pressure coefficient for a low-rise building (Gumbel, 1954
and Mayne.,1978). The extreme value type 1 distribution is a two-parameter distribution,
which means it is defined by hs location and scale parameters.

If p(s) is the probability density of all Cp peaks in the records and independent, the
cvmiulative distiibution of all peaks is given:
00
q{s) = q(S>s)= jp{s)ds. (2.1)

,v
From the tiieoretical researches of Gumbel (1954) and Mayne (1978) together with
tiie empirical study of Lou (1981), q(s) can be approximated by an extreme value
distiibution of type 1:
-V
qis) = l~e" ^ (2.2)
y=a(s-u). (2.3)
With a tiansform of equation 2.2, we can get:
y = -ln(-\ni\-q(s))), (2.4)
where u and 1/a are the mode and dispersion of the distribution. The expression, y, is
called the "reduced variate."
The procedure of this fit is then explained in detail. The 20 biggest independent
peaks are selected from the time series. A detailed introduction of independent peaks will
be given in this section. To these 20 peaks, the above Fisher-Tippet type 1 extieme value
distribution was fitted to get the model and dispersion by equation 2.4 and 2.3. Then
according to Letchford (1993), the estimated mean extreme peak pressure coefficient was
obtained according to the equation:
Cp = mode + (.577 + ln(«)) * dispersion. (2.5)

The reasoning behind selecting 20 peaks is that for 15 minutes of fiill-scale time
series, 20 peaks gave enough peaks at least 2 standard deviations away from the mean
(Letchford, 1993). Furthermore, it may save time of the automatic processing procedure
comparing to select all of independent peaks. However, h is necessary to mention less
than 20 peaks are also used for some fiall-scale runs because of limited available peaks.
The definition of independent peaks is introduced in detail at the end of this section.
Each model scale time series is equal to more than 4 hours of full-scale time series.
However, each full-scale record has a length of only 15 minutes. For a fair comparison
between model and full scale, a tiansform provided by Peterka (1982) is performed to get
one hour equivalent time length for both cases.
If the mode u and dispersion 1/a are parameters for certain time length records, the
corresponding mode UQ and dispersion 1/ao of M times long record equal to:
uo= u+ 1/ a*ln(M), (2.6)
ao= a. (2.7)
In our case, the M is 4 for full-scale data and 0.25 for model scale records.
The Figure 2.1 shows a typical distribution of peaks fitted to the FTl distribution to
get the model and dispersion. The x axis is the reduced variate from equation 2.4, and the
y axis is the minimum mean extreme pressure coefficients. Then the mode and
dispersion can be calculated from equation 2.4 or directiy taken from the Figure 2.1.
Subsequently, the transformed mode and dispersion corresponding to 1 hour full-scale
length are calculated according to equation 2.6 and 2.7. Finally, the mean extreme
pressure coefficients are calculated by equation 2.5. The coefficient of correlation R^
10
was better than 0.9 for most analyzed cases, which means a good fit of FTl distribution is
achieved.
An example of linear- regression for one 15 minute fiill-scale time series is given
below.
Mode and Dispersion for UWO tap605(Fuii 41513) under 90 AOA; Smooth
G-
1.5 -1 -0.5 (1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3
y = -0.022X - 0.328
t R^ = 0.978
Mode = -0.328
Dispersion = -0.022
—eT2-
—£«-
1 • y
*~*--i-_.
i .©745—
Reduced Variate (y)
Figure 2.1. 20 Single Largest Pressure Coefficients Fit to FTl Distribution.
The mean hourly extreme pressure coefficients for this time series are then calculated
to illustrate the process:
UlSmin =0.328 (2.8)
l/ai5min= 0.022 (2.9)
Ulhour = Ui5min+l/ai5min*hl(4) (2.10)
11
= -0.341
1/aihour = l/ai5min (2.11)

=0.02
Cpihour = Uihour+ (.577+ln(20))* l/ajhour (2.12)
=0.42
The independent peaks used above were defined as being separated by a 'zero crossing'
of mean autocorrelation coefficients.
Sample autocorrelation coefficient is an important guide to the properties of a time
series that measure the correlation between observations at different points in time.
Given N pairs of observations on two variables x and y, the correlation coefficient is
given by
yix -x)(y, -y)

i?= , ^ ' ' (2.13)
ji^x-xf^-yf]
Meanwhile, a similar idea autocorrelation coefficient can be applied to a time series
to see if successive observations are correlated.
On a discrete time series which has N observations xi, , Xn, we can form N-1 pairs
of observations, namely (xi, X2), (X2,X3),...., (XN-IXN). Regarding the first observations in
each pairs as one variable and the second observation as a second variable, the coefficient
correlation coefficient between Xj and Xi-n is given by
N-l
^ ( X , -X(1))(X,^|-X(2))
R^ . "' (2.14)
V (=1 i=\
For the above equation,
12
N-\
^•o)=YjîKN-\) . (2.15)
(=1
is the mean of the first N-l observations and
X(2) = Y.^,l{N-\) . (2.16)

(=1+1
is the mean of the last N-l observations. Since the coefficient given above measures
between successive observations, it is called autocorrelation coefficient or serial
correlation coefficient.
Altematively, the autocorrelation can be expressed in a more convenient form as:
N-\
2](x,-x)(x,î-x)
R=' ^ ^ , (2-17)
i=\
where x = '^x,/N is overall mean.

1=1
It is of interest to mention that Method I has a longer processing time than Method II;
this is explained due to the increased time necessary for the autocorrelation calculation
2.3.2 The Introduction to Method II
The time histories of wind induced pressure are generally non-Gaussian for a low-rise
building, which is different from tall buildings. Therefore, the current procedures for
estimating the peaks of the stochastic response of tall buildings to wind cannot be directly
used on a low-rise building (Sadek F. and Simiu E., 2002).
13
Based on tiie theory from Sadek (2002), an automated procedure is developed for
obtaining estimated mean extreme Cp using a standard translation processes approach. It
is possible to obtain the non-Gaussian peak distribution based on a Gaussian distribution
by this standard translation process approach.
A preliminary step is to decide proper marginal probability distribution for the non-
Gaussian time series. Sadek (2002) has investigated the marginal distribution for the low-
rise building internal force time series. A probability plot correlation coefficient method
(Filliben 1975) was used to analyze a certain number of time series of low-rise building.
After comparing several candidate distributions, it was found that the ganuna distribution
and normal distiibution are appropriate to fit to the longer and shorter tails of the non-
Gaussian time series
Now we will discuss a method based on the translation processes approach. Consider
a stationary non-Gaussian time history x(t) with marginal probability distribution Fx[x(t)]
and duration T. This method works by mapping the non-Gaussian time series onto a time
history y(t) with standardized marginal normal distribution 0[y(t)].
Rice (1954) has given an equation to calculate the cumulative distribution of the peak
ypk,T during the time interval T.
Fy,(ypKT)
' pk,T
= ^M-ôJ ^M-ylKT /2)], (2-i8)
where vo,y is mean 'zero upcrossing rate' of the Gaussian process y(t). Fy^^îy^^jYis the
cumulative distiibution of peaks for the time series y(t). This equation can yield the
14
corresponding maximum and minimum peaks for a specified cumulative
probabilhy F;^^ after the zero-upcrossing rate vo,y is achieved (Rice, 1954).
•-^p'"S; ^^ ^-=-f"i^ '^•"'
where F^^j. means specified cumulative probability.
The definition of the mean zero-upcrossing rate is the average number of crossing
with positive slope of level 0 of the non-Gaussian time series x(t) during the urut time.
The following is a formula for calculating the mean zero-upcrossing rate based on
classical result (Rice 1954).
r n'^Sy(n)dn
where n is the frequency and Sy(n) is the spectral density function of Gaussian process
y(t). However, in practice, Sy(n) may be replaced by the denshy function of process Sx(n)
with an acceptable error (Grigoriu 1995). Since the mean zero upcrossing rate vo,y is
obtained from the entire time series, it is a more precise estimator of the true upcrossing
rate than the observed crossing rate.
The procedure of mapping is briefly intioduced as follows. Since the process y(t) is a
Gaussian time series with standardized marginal probability distiibution, h is quite easy
to obtain the cumulative distribution Oiy^^j)' which is shown in the Figure 2.2
15
(Grigoriu 1995). For a specified cumulative probability F^^./. of the peaks in the process
y(t), according to equation 2.19 and the zero-upcrossing rate from equation 2.20, h is
possible to get the corresponding maximum and minimum peaks ^'^y- , , which are the first
and second steps indicated in the following graph. Then the cumulative probability in the
Gaussian space 0 ( v',,^ •,-) is determined during the third and fourth step of the graph.
Since we have decided the gamma and normal distribution fit to the longer and shorter
tail of the non-Gaussian time series x(t), the gamma or normal cumulative distribution
function with the parameter comes from the time series x(t) is decided as shown to the
right graph of Figure 2.2. For a cumulative probabilityF^(Xp,^.j.) = 0(yp,^j), the
corresponding peak in the non-Gaussian space, Xpkj, is achieved with the same
cumulative probability based on the theory of Grigoriu(1995) as indicated as steps 5, 6,
7. Finally, a mean extieme value is achieved based on this largest peaks distribution.
" " • • • " " ' " "

P /V 1
T p>^
,„. /. -:,Jt
û/W""/ -f^--^ [if -*•
Point on the peaks
/ disiribution curve
/ 1
1
— Slandaraizect Gaussian Pfooess
IB -Hon-Gstmrnim 1
m
j y —Otstrtoolion of P e * s (Gamma) Process 1
^ i ; ±—..
m y^.r '«> VT
Figure 2.2. Mapping Procedure for a Point from Non-Gaussian Process x(t) to Gaussian
Process y(t) (Sadek, 2002).
16
Based on above two methods, the automatic MATLAB programs are written. The
investigation of the time length effect are done, which proved the up-crossing rate,
gamma distiibution, and normal distribution parameters are not sensitive to the sampling
time length. A transform based on this observation is used to obtain the mean hourly
extreme pressure coefficients for model and full-scale records. The introduction of
MATLAB can be found in tiie Math Works (2000).
2.3.3 The Intioduction to the Probability Function
The Best-fit program (Best-fit, 1993) was used to find the proper continuous
probability density distiibutions in Chapter IV and Chapter V to fit the error terms of
pressure coefficient statistics. The definition of continuous and discrete probability
distribution is then intioduced followed by the function of several specific probability
distributions which are discussed in the following chapters.
The mathematical definition of a continuous probability function, f(x), is a function
that satisfies the following properties.
1. The probability that x is between two points a and b is
p[a<x<b]= f^fix)dx . (2.21)
2. It is non-negative for all real x.
3. The integral of the probability function is one, that is
17
£/(.Y)A- =1 (2.22)
Because continuous probability functions are defined for an infinite number of points
over a continuous interval, the probability at a single point is always zero. Probabilities
are measured over intervals, not single points. The property that the integral must equal
one is equivalent to the property for discrete distributions that the sum of all the
probabilities must equal one.
Several probability distiibutions are briefly introduced below according to Bean
(2001) and NIST (2004).
2.3.3.1 Beta Distiibution
The Beta Probability density distribution is given by:
-0<JC<1
/cW= ''''' , . , (2-23)
0 otherwise
where B(r,s) denotes the beta function:
Bir,s)=lz'-\\-zy''dz. (2-24)
Here, r and s are two parameters which are both positive real number.
2.3.3.2 Eriang Distribution
18
Given a Poisson distribution with a rate of change X, the cumulative probabilhy
distiibution function D(x) gives the waiting times until the Mh Poisson event is
Z)(.v) = l - I ( ^ ^ : ^ . .2 25)
for xe[0,oo], where r(x)is a complete gamma fianction and r(a,x)an incomplete
gamma function. With h explicitly an integer, this distribution is known as the Eriang
distribution and has the probabilhy function
A(/lx) A-l
^^^^ = ^ r ^ ^ • (2.26)
{h-Y)
It is closely related to the gamma distribution, which is obtained by letting a = h (not
necessarily an integer) and defining 0 = \IX. When h=\,it simplifies to the exponential
distribution.
2.3.3.3 Extieme Value Distribution
An extreme value distribution is the distribution of the extreme order statistic X*'*
(i.e., the maximum) for a distribution of A^ elements. The extreme value distribution is
sometimes also known as the Fisher-Tippett distribution or Log-Weibull distribution.
f(,),<«-^)/^-^'--"\ (2.27)
19
D{x) = e-' (2.28)
2.3.3.4 Gamma Distiibution
The general formula for the probability distribution function of the gamma
distiibution is:
i^^^y- exp(-^^)
n^-) = —^ ^FTS ' x>p;r,l3>0
where p is the location parameter, y is the shape parameter, /^ is the scale parameter, and
F is the gamma function whose formulation is
r(fl)= ft^-'e-'dt.
The special case where p =0 and y5 =1 is named the standard gamma distribution.
The equation for the standard gamma distribution reduced to
x' e-"
r(a) =
r(r)
2.3.3.5 Logistic Distribution
f(X) = exp[-(X-a)/^] (2 30)

j3[\ + exp[-iX-a)//3]f
Parameters-Scale
y^;/?>0
20
Parameters-Location
a : - 0 0 < Of < 00
2.3.3.6 Loglogistic Distribution
The log-logistic distribution (continuous) could be used to model the time required
to perform some tasks. The mean and variance are finite only if shape > 2.
2.3.3.7 Lognorm Distiibution
Lognorm distribution is a continuous distribution in which the logarithm of a
variable has a normal distribution. It is a general case of Gibrat's distribution, to which
the log normal distribution reduces with S = 1 and M= 0. The probability density is given
by:
I An(X)--p2.
exp[--[ ] ]
fiX) = j = ^ ^ (2.31)
Parameters-Scale
p;p>0
Parameters-Location
cr:a>0
21
2.3.3.8 Normal Distribution
A normal distribution in a variate Zwith mean // and variance a^ has probability
function
P{X) = ^ e-ix-,iVK2a^) (232)

a^l2/r
on the domain .xe (-00,00). While statisticians and mathematicians uniformly use the
term "normal distiibution" for this distribution, physicists sometimes call it a Gaussian
distiibution and, because of its curved flaring shape, social scientists refer to it as the
"beU curve."
The so-called "standard normal distribution" is given by taking p - Oand cr^ = 1 in a
general normal distiibution.
2.3.3.9 Weibull Distribution
The formula for the probability density fiinction of the general Weibull distribution is
f(^x) = ^(^Y''-'^cxp(-iix-p)/ay), x>p\Y,a>Q. (2.33)
where X is the shape parameter, p is the location parameter and a is the scale parameter.
The case where ;/ = 0 and a = 1 is called the standard Weibull distribution.
22
2.3.4 The Introduction to the Roughness Length Calculation
Turbulence intensity and roughness length are important in this thesis; the calculation
of roughness lengtii is given below by using a full-scale time series as an example:
The meteorological instruments are installed at five levels: 8, 13, 33, 70, 160 ft. The
wind profile information is acquired at these levels. First, the wind velocity at 8, 13, 33,
70, 160 ft is achieved, and the log value of height also obtained. Then a linear regression
line is fit to the points with the x axis of wind velocity and y axis of log length. After that,
we get the dispersion m and interception b.
Smoothness yo is calculated by following equation:
y,=e' . (2.34)
Figure 2.3 is an example of calculating the roughness length for full-scale test run
1278. The x axis is the wind velocity at 4 heights, y axis is the logarithm value of height.
The reason of discarding the height of 160 ft is the turbulence intensity at this height
shows a doubtable increase trend. From the graph, we get dispersion m=0.1705 and
intercept b= -3.832, so the smoothness yois 0.022 ft according to equation 2.34.
23
4.5
y = 0.1705x-3.832 <
R^ = 0.9983
3.5
oi 2,5
wind velocity
-Linear (wind velocity)
S 2
1.5
0.5
10 15 25 30 35 40 45
Velocity
Figure 2.3. Linear Regressions of Full-Scale Run 1278.
24
CHAPTER III
TEST FACILITIES AND TARGET FLOW
SIMULATION DATA
Establishing the uncertainties associated with model building and with the
tianslation of model-scale results to full scale requires data from both types of facilities.
For tills study, data from two 1:100 scale models tested in three different wind tunnels
and from the Texas Tech University's Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory
(WERFL) are used to investigate these uncertainties. The wind tunnel test simulates 10
percentile and 90 percentile of the full-scale test velocity profile and turbulence intensity
profile. Section 3.1 introduces Texas Tech University's Wind Engineering Research Field
Laboratory (WERFL) facility; Section 3.2 describes the UWO and CSU models. Section
3.3 provides a description of the Wind Tunnel Test Facilities and Flow Simulations.
3.1. The Full-Scale Facility
Texas Tech University's Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory (WERFL)
consists of a 30 x 45 x 15 ft (9.1 x 13.7 x 4.0m) metal test building and a 160ft (49m)
meteorological tower. The field facility, instrumentation, data acquisition system, site
characteristics, wind data characteristics, and terrain parameters have been described in
detail by Levitan and Metha (1991) and Campbell, J. (1995). A brief sunmiary of the
facility is provided below.
25
Time series collected at WERFL are 15 minutes in duration with a sampling
frequency of 30 HZ; thus, the total length of a wind or pressure time history is 27,000
points. More than 2000 records are collected, which have been started since 2002. The
basic wind parameters, such as the roughness length, power law coefficient, and
turbulence intensity, along witii pressure coefficients are computed for each records.
3.1.1 Meteorological Tower
Instiuments for wind speed and wind direction are installed at the 8, 13, 33, 70 and
160 ft heights on tiie meteorological tower. R.M. Young UVW anemometers are used to
measure wind speed along three orthogonal axes. These wind speeds are used to
compute total wdnd speed, along, across, and vertical wind speeds, as well as turbulence
intensities, integral scales, and mean flow parameters (i.e., power law exponent,
roughness length, and shear velocities). Temperature, relative humidity, and barometric
pressure are measured at the 13 ft level. Mean values of these quantities are used to
compute mean air density. The mean wind speed at the 13 ft height (eave height of the
test building) and the mean air density are used to compute the mean dynamic pressure
for each 15-minute data acquisition run. Mean dynamic pressure is used to compute
pressure coefficients from differential pressures measured on the test building
Figure 3.1 shows the test building and meteorological tower.
26
L. I
Figure 3.1. WERFL Test Building and Meteorological Tower.
3.1.2 Terrain and Site Characteristics
The terrain around the facility is flat and open. Figure 3.2 provides a view looking to
the Northwest of WERFL. In the late autumn, winter, and spring, the winds from the west
through northeast can have 15-minute duration mean speeds of 20-35 mph (9-16 m/s).
During summer months, the prevailing winds, which come from the south or southwest,
reach speeds of 10-20 mph (4.5-9 m/s). Figure 3.2 (Levitan, 1991) shows a plat of
WERFL and the surrounding terrain. The terrain classification is considered to be flat
with a few isolated obstructions (ASCE7-02 Open Terrain Category).
27
Figure 3.2. Map of Field Site and Surrounding Terrain.
Although WERFL is in flat open terrain, there is a large variation in flow
characteristics measured. To provide a target for flow simulation for the wind tunnel
testing component of this project, summary statistics, as well as the 10* and 90*
28
percentile values for the roughness length, power law exponent, and turbulence
intenshies at the 3, 8, 13, 33, 70, and 160 ft levels measured at the Wind Engineering
Research Field Laboratory, were compiled. These target values are given in Tables 3.1
and Table 3.2. The flows associated with the mean, the 10*, and the 90* percentiles can
be used for comparison of the wind turmel and the full-scale results. The target velocity
and turbulence intensity profile are given in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4.
The data given in Table 3.1 are developed from 737 15-minute duration records
where:
1. The mean wind speed is above 15 miles per hour at the 13-feet height;
2. At least 4 anemometers were functioning on the tower;
3. The correlation coefficient from the regression to establish the roughness
length and shear velocity using the log law has a value greater than 0.97;
and,
4. The data is stationary both in speed and direction.
This censored data set is considered free of profiles with "kinks" that result from
thermal convection and change in terrain roughness. This will make comparison of the
field and wind turmel data easier to accomplish.
29
Table 3.1 Summary statistics and values for the 10* and 90* percentiles for the
roughness length, power law exponent, and turbulence intensities at the 3, 8, 13, 33, 70,
and 160 ft levels.
Num. of
737 737 711 689 737 617 693 528
Observations
Statistic Zo, ft a I3 h Il3 I33 I70 I160
Mean 0.041 0.160 0.224 0.207 0.198 0.180 0.166 0.148
Standard
0.037 0.022 0.024 0.026 0.027 0.025 0.025 0.030
Deviation
Mirumum 0.002 0.111 0.173 0.154 0.128 0.116 0.102 0.087
Maximum 0.38 0.229 0.368 0.371 0.366 0.365 0.361 0.336
10* Percentile 0.010 0.133 0.195 0.176 0.165 0.150 0.136 0.116
90* Percentile 0.087 0.190 0.255 0.242 0.234 0.212 0.199 0.187
^th
Table 3.2 Summary statistics and values for the 10 and
90* percentiles for the velocity ratio at the 3, 8, 13, 33
70, and 160 ft levels.(by power law)
Z(ft) Z(m) V/V 10th 90th

Pencentile Pencentile
V/V@33
@33ft YNm3&.
ft
3 0.91 0.68 0.73 0.64
8 2.44 0.8 0.83 0.77
13 3.96 0.86 0.88 0.84
33 10.06 1 1 I
70 21.34 1.13 1.11 1.16
160 48.77 1.29 1.24 1.35
30
TurbuloncG Intensity Profile for WERFL
80 1
70
\ \
60
C 50
N
\ \
\ \ —•— 10lh percentile Tl
£ 40 —m- Mean Tl
o 9Glh Percentile Tl
\ \
1 30
\ \
20
\ \
10
C
3 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 025 0,3
Turbulence Intensity
Figure 3.3. Turbulence Intensity Profile for WERPL Building.
Velocity Profile by power Law: V/v@33ft vs Height Z(ft)
- 1 0 percentile velocity |
- m e a n velocity I
90 pdrcentile velocity |
06 oe
VA/@33ft
Figure 3.4. Velocity Profile by Power Law for WERFL Building.
31
3.1.3 Pressure Tap Locations
Wind-induced pressures on the surface of the building are measured with differential
pressure transducers. Reference pressure for the differential pressure transducers is
obtained from a below groimd box (reference pressure box) located approximately 70 ft
to the west of the test building between the building and the meteorological tower.
The building is not anchored directly to the foundation, but rather to a rigid frame
undercarriage. The mechanism to rotate the building provides positive control over wind
angle of attack. The building position is defined as the angle between the longitudinal
axis of the building and true north as shown in Figure 3.5 (Levitan, 1991). Wind angle of
attack is the wind azimuth minus the building poshion. The system allows a 360 degree
rotation of the building. The anchor bohs embedded in the slab of the building are
separated by an angle of 15 degrees. When the building is rotated to the desired position,
the building is lowered and secured to the anchor bohs.
32
W I till
tx - wi»dl Mwwtth
9 - awgl* <>t' »t««ck
Figure 3.5. Wind Azimuth and Angle of Attack for WERFL Building.
The WERFL building has recently been upgraded to measure differential pressures at
204 pressure tap locations. The locations of these taps are shown in Figure 3.6. The tap
designations and the exact tap locations are given in Appendix F.
33
o
.0
o
^ yr -t
•0
(N •*
;;, ^ f^l
+
n ' o ^' o + 6
CL Q_
n oo lo nn < <
Ci
o
+ UJ 00 O -^
~l + t
^
r*')
+
Kl
f
^
tn
4
•«*• ro INI ' ^

O
O
O
O K
O 6 '•">
CNt , J J1 o t +
^
b
+
* -h
* ^ +
' * ' ' •
n
(O vn u-1 u) in m
t£i CO "t
o
in + in + inn o + in + o o
o o 0 +
CM OJ
*03
m in in in in in
'&
tf-
-^
-t
o o O o o 03
o o
c
• ^ ^
o + o + O in ^ o + in + ro + 0 4
O o
(N C-, f.N '- Ul in in in in in
in+
to
in+
^
• ^
00
O
i n -f in
in in in
o+
in
in ^
in Ln 00
o
'^
o
CM CM CsJ ^ u-i
CM
in in in in
ro
• *
0 +
to
•st
CQ
CO
o o
o
O t CM
o o
Ln +
o
in +
O o
^
o + o o+ o + ro + in +
CM CM ir«j r^ Ln u^ in in in in
CM 0
-* '^
tJ-
O O
^
•N
Lf!) in in
CM
in
CM
00
in + i n -t m"* 0+ in + o + in + rO + 0 4 o o
CM i n CM 0
CM
+ 0
CM
+
c CM in in in in in in CD
"* -^
• * to K}
o^
o o
to
o
ro ro
OD
o
^
o
o + o + t- 00 +
CM
in+ o+ in + o + in + o+ in+
I-~) fO
CM in tn in in in in in in
Kl
-^ ^
t
o
00 rO r-)
+ 03+
m in LO in in in
in +
in
rO +
in CO
o
^
o CJi
in + in + in"* in+ o+ o + o-t 0 + 0 +
fO ro CM CM CM o o n
CM CM CM in m m in LO m LO
CNJ
oi ^ ^
• * 00 m r-)
•^
o
-t
o o
^
^ ^ ^ o o
• ^
o + o + o"* + C0+
CJ
o + o-t in +
-a- in in in in in
o
in
o
in
o
U"} o o
CN CNJ CM
^
• *
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ + + + + + + +
00
o
^ ^
o JD O r
o
^ - - - ^ 4
••
"^ "^ '* "" •*" •*•
03
12308
10408
11908
CO 03 00
00 o O o O
lO +
-1-
CO + in +
•f
o o CM 4
1 o
'I ^
2604
2304
1904
0404
0804
^\ - O o
^
+
in +
+
-. i o
to j
34
3.1.4 Data Acquisition System
There are 13 slave computers and one master computer in a distiibution system that is
connected by a local area network. There is a master computer to contiol the Lan. The
607IE DAQ boards and "remote data acquisition" Labview software provided by
National Instruments are used for data acquisition and analysis.
There is an initial zero run to calibrate the instruments followed by a 15 minute
diu-ation run. After that, a final zero run is processed. This is an automatic system that is
tiiggered when 1-minute average wind speed exceeds a pre-set threshold value (typically
15 mph). The collected data is processed using a custom written basic program. The flow
parameters are recorded, and pressure coefficients are calculated by the program.
3.2 UWO and CSU Wind Tunnel Models
Model-scale test data used in this thesis are collected on two 1:100 scale models. The
model built at the University of Western Ontario (UWO) is named Structural Load
Model. The model buih at Colorado State University is called the CSU model. There is
another 1:50 model built; however, this thesis only studied two 1:100 models.
The Structure Load Model has 204 new taps corresponding to the current
instrumented taps on WERFL that are used in this thesis; the other 2 old tap locations are
also given as reference.
The Figures showing the tap locations and model dimension are given in Figure 3.7.
35
Foi UWO wind tunnel
1314
H-S 4-1 -IS + i^ 4-S +^ 4-r-:^ Ul CO
< ,<
1305
H!^ U-1 ru CO
+
4-."5 +?3 +S 4-S 4-S +s
3 B
OJ oJ CU S, OJ OJ
™ i-u
itJ:^_ -1- +
4-
+ + -1- 4- '•^-t
(U
t. CM "ro
1^ CO CT. o
•
o ^
O
iJj
1- 4- 4-
,.- 4- 4 4- +,Z+ 4 Is
OJ
ru
-1-
'ZZ
= " O
o
OJ ru
O
+^
l£>
+ O
—+—
+ +
1-84-
i"!^'
OJ
8 +g 4
9001
1101
24- 2-^
CO
00
CD
+ D
+ +
£001
cu
H
,^;i
CT> 5>
n hl g-H
cr- o
CO
in U
+g -hs + 4- 4- + i s+ 2+
§-• nj
4i
a co
to s; I-S cr^ ' S+
00
O
+i +g _ 4- + 4 4-
§^ '^ in
r^ CO
I-S
03
i+ QD '
I
I-S en
+^ -fS ?-> 1-51- 4- 4- 4 4-
—
4- 4- = 4
g+ S+ c
39.2r 1 34.34' 1 29.35
— OJ 1^
CU
3
605
4-S
in -l-K F;4
">o
+ 4-
in
4 + 4- 4-54
s+ §4-
in in in ir m
+ + I-S
505
+5 Si4
4-
5034-
5044-
4 4-
4-=
'^
in
OJ
in
§+ 1+
in
1 =
4-K ' CO
ro"* 4-
sD
+ 4
n
+ -^ -î-t s+ 1+
^ ID ^
n
OJ n
308
lU-l f 4- 4- 4- 4 4- -1- + 4
CO lO
f
-1- -1-
OJ CO
1 to
cn
+
2074-
2064
H^
1-B02
+602
t-co -1-
in
ru OJ
cu OJ
91
H^ -|- = +S 4-S -t-S "J.+ 4- +s s-t

CM
K
1-2 +2 +s 4-S 4-S °+ -l-= -1-° S 4
rO
For CSU and TTU wind tunnel
36
The second 1:100 scale model at CSU was equipped with 130 pressure taps based
on tiie previous WERFL experimental configurations. The layout of the taps on the
model is given in Figure 3.8.
In order to be able to rotate it relative to the direction of the oncoming wind, each
model was mounted on a turntable in tiie wind tunnel. The definition of the wind azimuth
angle may differ by 180 degrees for different wind tunnels (see graphs of Figure 3.7 and
Figure 3.8). The 1:100 scale models were rotated between azimuth angles of OE and 315E
degrees, wdth increments of 45E. All models were tested with smaller increments for
azimuth angles between OE and 90E.
During testing, experimental pressure coefficients are referenced to the mean
dynamic pressure at reference height (qref) in the wind turmel. To be able to compare
between the models, the experimental pressure coefficients were re-referenced to the
mean dynamic pressure at building eave height (qn). The eave height H for this building
is 13 feet in full-scale. The conversion is made with Eq:
C p H = ( p - p o ) / q H = (p-po)/qref*(qref/qH)- ( 3 • 1)
The pressure coefficient (p-po)/qref was obtained directiy from the wind tunnel
measurements. The conversion factors, (qref/qn) are determined from previous recorded
wind tunnel velocity profiles. For the UWO wind tunnel, this number is 2.37 for smooth
37
exposure while 4.03 for roughness exposure. The full-scale pressure coefficients in this
thesis are also referenced to the mean dynamic pressure at eave height (qn).
38
UWO Wind Tunnel
I-20S 13? 9I|7 SIlJ Elf Sit

+ + HI- + + ' l i " OIH
+
60S
OIS BOS iOS 90S SOS HIS
HIS + + + + + + + £054
£09 209 109 9IS SIS HS tlS 2IS

fiin9 + + + + + + + 4
I-SI9
IT"
+
o
+^ +s += +5
804
-4
+- Z5
-I-S
f 4 -l-g +"
i-i O
-I-S +s S-l -1-S +2i
^ fO
cn
+s c
609 610 611

+ + +
-i-a §4
715+801
+S +^ +s
716
3
+- +S CD
OJ
714
= 4
4=
+= +S -I-S +i
S-l hp 1 f^
+s -l-R -I-S +S
CO
CO ,
54 I-R
-I-S +S +s -I-S
in a in
Cl
+ + 4 t S — 4.— 4-
cn
:LJ
+ + + + + + +
204 205 206 207 208 209
203
HIO + + + + 2024
+ 113 114 115 + 201
111 112 116
+ + + + +
HOI iJj 103 104 105 106 107 108 l " "
For CSU&TTU Wind Tunnel
V^V^-^
39
3.3 Wind Tunnel Test Facilities and Flow Simulations
These two different physical models are tested in the same full-scale wind conditions
for two different upstream terrain exposures (i.e., smooth and rough length case) in
UWO, CSU. and TTU wind tunnel.
All three wind tunnel tests simulate 10 percentile and 90 percentile of ftill-scale test
velocity and turbulence characteristics observed at WERFL.
The mean velocity normalized with the velocity at height z to a fiill-scale height of
33ft. The local turbulence intensity was measured as the ratio of the standard deviation of
the velocity to the mean velocity measured at each height. The data of velocity ratio and
turbulence intensity for the UWO, CSU, and TTU wind tunnels and WERFL are added in
Appendix G.
For the UWO, CSU, and TTU wind tunnels, the 10 percentile and 90 percentile of
velocity profile and turbulence intensity profile are plotted against 10 percentile and 90
percentile of WERFL profile. Those graphs and observations, together with a brief
introduction to the wind turmel facility, are given in the following sections.
3.3.1 UWO Test Facility and Flow Simulation
The Boundary Layer Wind Turmel Laboratory (BLWTL) at the University of
Western Ontario has an upstieam fetch 39 m long. This long upstream fetch is used to
acctu-ately model the atmospheric boundary layer for different terrain exposures. Both the
1:100 scale models were tested for two different upstream terrain exposures. The wind
tunnel profiles were matched with two different open country wind condhions at the fiiU-
40
scale TTU building site. The chosen exposures were representative of the range of open
countiy exposiu-es observed at the TTU site. The first had the 10th percentile properties
of the full-scale measurements with an equivalent roughness length Zo of 0.01 meters,
and the second had the 90th percentile properties with an equivalent roughness length Zo
of 0.087 meters.
Generally, the velocity and turbulence intensity profile match well especially for
velocity profile. The graphs are given in Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10:
Turbuletice Intensity Profiles for UWO&WERFL

o
•
o
ml \
o
1 1 ^
Full Scale Height, Z(ft}
o
Mt ^
- • - W E R F L 10 Percentile
. • - • - U W O WT 10 Percentile
o
WERFL 90 Percentile
•• UWO W T 90 Percentile
o
\\ \
o
V "^
o
^ •
o
0 0.05 0 1 0 15 02 0 25 03
Mean Turbulence Intensity
Figure 3.9. Turbulence Intensity Profiles for UWO and WERFL.
41
Velocity Profiles for UWO&WERFL (V/V @33ft)
100
90
80
T /
ir f.
70 J 1
£" / ^
i7 60
JZ
a
'a // - • - W E R F L 10 Percentile
I 50 - • - UWO WT 10 Percentile
a WERFL W T 90 Percentile
IS
UWO WT 90 Percentile
1
! 40
3
U.
30
I
20
10 -
< ^
,J^
0 -
) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Mean Velocity (VW (g33ft)
Figure 3.10. Velocity Profiles for UWO and WERFL (VA^ @33ft).
3.3.2 TTU Test Facility and Flow Simulation
The experiments were conducted in the high-speed section of the boundary layer
wind tunnel located on the Texas Tech University campus. The wind tunnel is a closed
circuit turmel with a 57-ft long section serving as two parts: the first part is a 6 ft wide by
4 ft high aerodynamic section (AERO); the second is a 6 ft by 5 ft high boundary-layer
(BL) section. The graphs for this wind turmel are given in Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12.
42
1 1
+j -
[^ —
^ • ^ ^ ^ ^
>
'<5^
^c_ 1 J
V — 1
Aero
'
1 "
-»•
J
BLTest 1—-^
1
1— 1
L-
t
^
^"^1
Figure 3.11. Texas Tech Wind Turmel Facility (Elevation View).
Figure 3.12. Texas Tech Wind Tunnel.
The similar velocity and tiirbulence intensity profiles are given in Figure 3.13 and
Figure 3.14. Once again velocity profiles match well (Niaz, 2004).
43
Turbulence Intensity Profiles for TTU&WERFL
90
SO W K
70
60
iC
| 5 0
0)
M \
X - • - T T U WT 10 Percentile
u
3 40 WERFL 90 Percentile
I^XZZV \
CO
- « - TTU WT 90 Percentile
3
u.
30
20
10
0
C 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 025 0.3
Figure 3.13. Turbulence Intensity Profiles for TTU and WERFL.
Velocity Profiles for TTU&WERFL (V/V @33ft)
90
80 !» >
/ /
70
60
Iff
C
N
» 50
X
111
lf>i
-<»-TTU WT 10 Percentile
« WERFL WT 90 Percentile
S 40
(0 •• - TTU WT 90 Percentile
"5
u. /
30
/ /
20
10 ij
0 -
î
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 14
Mean Velocity (V/V @33ft)
Figure 3.14. Velocity Profiles for TTU and WERFL (VA^ @33ft).
44
3.3.3 CSU Test Facility & Flow Simulation
The Meteorology Wind Tunnel in the Fluid Dynamics and Difftision Laboratory
(FDDL) of Colorado State University was used in this study. This is a closed circuit wind
turmel with a test section 1.83m wide by 26.82 m long, with a divergence of 7.8 mm/m to
maintain a zero pressure gradient. The contraction ratio at the entrance of the test section
is 9:1.
The turbulence intensity and velocity profile for CSU wind tunnel are given in
Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16. The turbulence intensity profiles show a bigger discrepancy
between model and WERFL, while the velochy profiles still match well.
Turbulence Intensity Profiles for CSU&WERFL
0.1 0.15 0.2

Figure 3.15. Turbulence Intensity Profiles for CSU and WERFL.
45
Velocity Profiles for CSU&WERFL (V/V @33ft)
eo
70
60 Jll
Ij
C 50
£ 40 1/ - • - W E R F L 10 Percentile
- • - C S U W T 10 Percentile
£
n
c/1
"5 30
I •-K
WERFL WT 90 Percentile
CSU WT 90 Percentile
J
u.
20
10 //I
• iti^
0
3 0.2 04 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Mean Velocity (V/V @33ft)
Figure 3.16. Velocity Profiles for CSU and WERFL (VAV @33ft).
46
CHAPTER IV
THE UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH WIND
TUNNEL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
Colorado State University, the University of Western Ontorio and Texas Tech
University have already completed wind tunnel tests for the Texas Tech WERFL
building. It is our interest to check these tests and try to establish an uncertainty
associated with wind tunnel testing.
Generally, uncertainties associated with wind turmel testing can be attributed to:
1. Repeatability
2. Model-building
3. Use of different wind tunnels (simulation and data acquisition systems)
4. Estimation techniques for extreme value statistics.
If the four uncertainties are independent then the total variance associated with wind
turmel testing, tmcertainties can be established as:
V^ =K^ +V^ +V^ +V^ (4 D

lolal repeat mod el.building wind .tunnel estimation ' V • /
where V is the variance for each of the uncertainties. Each of these uncertainties is
quantified below.
Since different models and wind tunnel facilities are used to establish the variance of
each uncertainty, five tables are given below:
47
Table 4.1 The model and wind tunnel facilities used to establish uncertainty of
repeatability:
UWO Wind Tumiel CSU Wind Tunnel TTU Wind Tunnel

SLM Model Yes *
CSU Model
Table 4.2 The model and wind tunnel facilhies used to establish uncertainty of model-
building:
UWO Wind Tunnel CSU Wind Tunnel TTU Wind Tunnel

SLM Model Yes
CSU Model Yes
Table 4.3 The model and wind tunnel facilities used to establish uncertainty of wind
turmel simulations:

SLM Model Yes * Yes * Yes *
CSU Model
Table 4.4 The model and wind tunnel facilities used to establish uncertainty of estimation
techniques:

SLM Model Yes#
CSU Model Yes#
Table 4.5 The model and wind tunnel facilities used to establish combined uncertainties
of model-building and estimation techniques:

SLM Model Yes#
CSU Model Yes#
For Table 4.1 through Table 4.5, the punctuations are explained below:
General statistics (mean, standard deviation, single largest, and minimum Cp) analyzed: *
Mean extreme pressure coefficients analyzed: #
48
4.1 Uncertainfies Associated with Repeatabilhy
The wind turmel provides the tool to perform controlled repeatable experiments;
however, due to the nature of the underlying processes, the resuhs (i.e., mean, standard
deviation, minimum, and maximum pressure coefficients) from the wind tunnel are
random variables. Thus they will vary from run to run, even in this controlled
environment. The uncertainties for each of these statistics can be established by
estimating the error between two experimentally identical runs (i.e., an original run and a
repeat run) for a large number of taps and fitting a distribution to the errors.
The data to estimate the uncertainty due to repeatability is obtained from the datasets
from the Univershy of Westem Ontario on the Structural Load Model (SLM). For this
investigation, pressure coefficient summary statistics (i.e., mean, rms, minimum, and
maximum pressure coefficients) from smooth simulations for all 204 pressure taps under
the 45 degree angle of attack are used to establish the errors. The statistic for a tap with a
given simulation and angle of attack from the original and repeated runs are considered
data pairs. Since there is one original and 20 repeat runs available, a total of 20 pairs of
data are analyzed for each tap. The errors are defined as the deviation from the original
run and are calculated as following:
^ "~ ^Prepeal ~ ^Poriginal . C^-^)
Figure 4.1 shows the scatter plot of the data pairs for the Cp mean value. The 45 degree
line indicates the zero error in the estimate of the mean Cp. The error in an estimate due
49
to repeatability is the (vertical) deviations between the data points and the zero error line.
A total of 204 taps were analyzed, each corresponding to 20 (20 repeat runs) pairs of
data. That produces 4080 pairs of pressure coefficient data on the graph. From the graph,
it is obvious that original and repeat data fit very well.
The relative fi-equency histogram of mean pressure coefficient error terms is given in
Figure 4.2. The histograms for the errors in quadrant I (poshive-positive values) and
quadrant III (negative-negative) are given in Figure 4.3 and c respectively.
Best-fit software was used to establish the best-fit distribution to all three histograms.
It was established that a logistic distribution provided the best fit to the mean Cp errors.
The best-fit distiibutions are plotted on top of the histograms in Figure 4.2 through 4.4
for reference.
The X axis of map indicates the value of errors, while the y axis depicts the relative
frequency. It is obvious that the errors are small for these graphs. All three logistic
distributions have small location and scale parameters.
50
OrlgianI Mean Pressure Coefficients
Figure 4.1. The Comparison of Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients between Original
and Repeated Runs for UWO(SLM).
623
Relative
Frequency 31 2
Figure 4.2. Logistic Distribution (-1.32e-3,6.36e-3) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram.
51
Relative
Frequency 247
0 03 0.04
Mean Cp Enor
Figtire 4.3. Logistic Distribution (1.06e-4,6.14e-3) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram
(Quadrant 1).
55 3
Relative
Frequency 27,6
Figure 4.4. Logistic Distribution (-1.76e-3, 6.52e-3) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram
(Quadrant 3).
52
This process was repeated for the rms (standard deviation), single largest maximum
peaks, and minimum peaks. These results are shown in Figure 4.5 through 4.12 and
are
simimarized in Table 4.6.
Since almost all of the pressure coefficients are located in one quadrant for standard
deviation and minimum value, there is only one overall best-fit plot for each of them.
Eriang distribution provided a best fit for standard deviation distiibution. For all of other
cases. Logistic distiibution is the best choice.
Unlike tiie scatter plots for mean pressure coefficients, the plots for maximum and
minimum pressure coefficients show larger scatter, ft is especially obvious for minimum
value (i.e.. Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12).
• R1
a R2
R3
X R4
X R5
• R6
+ R7
- R8
- R9
RIO
R11
R12
R13
R14
-o R15
R16
- R17
- R18
» R19
• R20
— 4 5 Degree Line
0.4 0.6 O.E

OriglanI SD Pressure Coefficient
Figure 4.5. Comparison of Standard Deviation Pressure Coefficients between Original and
Repeated Runs for UWO(SLM).
53
Relative
Frequency
Figure 4.6. Eriang Distribution (24.00, 1.20e-3) + -2.69e-2 Fits to SD Cp Error

Histogram.
• R1
• R2
R3
••' R4
X R6
• R6
+ R7
- Re
~ R9
RIO
R11
R12
R13
•: R14
» R15
R16
- R17
•- R18
• R19
« R20
45 Degree Line
OrigianI Max Pressure Coefficient
Figure 4.7. Comparison of Maximum Pressure Coefficients between Original and

54
Relative
Frequency ss
Figure 4.8. Logistic Distiibution (-3.03e-3, 7.49e-2) Fits to Max Cp Error Histogram.
Relative
Frequency 2B
•0 9 S7 -as 12 0,0 0^ 0.3 05 07 09

Max cp En 01
Figure 4.9. Logistic Distribution (-8.19e-3,7.96e-2) Fits to Max Cp Error Histogram.
55
(Quadrant 1).
12.4-
Relative
Frequency gj-
00
.0 18 -o'i4 o'n 4).b7 .ob4 o4o ot)4 0.6? o. 1 0. 4 0^ 8
Ma.\' Cp E l 101
Figure 4.10. Logistic Distribution (-5.86e-3,2.58e-2) Fits to Max Cp Error Histogram

(Quadrant 3).
• R1
a R2
} -8 -7 -6 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 -1
y^^ \ R3
X R4
ft ~ X R5
c i • R6
E
• s
*• R7
- R8
01 +
o R9
ssure C
R10
• ^ ^ r _ R11
a R12
c R13
£ j H ^ *
.. R14
peated
5 - >/^ R15
R16
a. R17
- R18
9 R19
» R20
^ ^ 4 5 Degree Line
_ „ „..„ .9^
OrigianI Min Pressure Coefficient
Figure 4.11. Comparison of Minimum Pressure Coefficients between Original and

56
Relative
Frequency le
Mill Cp En 01
Figure 4.12. Logisfic(-9.76e-3,0.12) Distribution Fhs to Min Cp Error Histogram.
57
Table 4.6 The Statistic for Original-Repeat Run Error Term
Errors in Statistic Error(Uncertainty) Distribution

Statistic Standard Parameter Parameter
Mean Min Max Type
Deviation I 2(3)
Cp Mean' -1.32e-3 0.012 -0.12 0.12
Logistic -1.32e-3 6.36e-3
CpMean
1.06e-4 0.011 -0.069 0.035 Logistic 1.06e-4 6.14e-3
Cp Mean
-1.76e-3 0.012 -0.12 0.12 Logistic -1.76e-3 6.52e-3
(HI)'
CpRms^ 1.2e-2
0.002 0.006 -0.027 0.073 Eriang 24.000
(-2.69e-2)
Cp Max''
-0.003 0.14 -0.70 0.87 Logistic -3.03e-3 7.49e-2
CpMax
0.87
-0.008 0.15 -0.70 Logistic -8.19e-3 0.08
(I)'
CpMax
(III)' -5.86e-3 0.047 -0.18 0.17 Logistic -5.86e-3 0.026
Cp Min' 1.34 Logistic -9.76e-3 0.12

-0.01 0.22 -1.64
Considering the error terms of all mean Cp data pairs (both quadrant I & III data), the
mean statistics is -1.32e-03 as in the first column of the first row. Followed is the
standard deviation of error terms, which is 0.012. The third and fourth data are maximum
and minimum of error terms statistics; then, a logistic distiibution is decided as the best
fit to the error terms with the first parameter of-1.32e-3 and second parameter of 6.36e-3.
58
1. The rows 1, 2, 3 summarize Figure 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 respectively of Mean Cp error
terms
2. The rows 4 summarize Figure 4.6 of SD Cp error terms
3. The rows 5, 6, 7 smumarize Figure 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 respectively of Maximum Cp error
terms
4. The row 8 summarize Figure 4.12 of Minimum Cp error terms
The definitions of parameters of all tables in this thesis are summarized in the
table 4.7:
Table 4.7 The Definition of Parameters for Probability Density Functions
Extreme
Beta Eriang Gamma Logistic Loglogistic Lognorm Normal Weibull
value
Parameter 1 al m a a a r H 11 a
Parameter 2 a2 P b P P P o a P
Parameter 3 a
4.2 Uncertainties Associated with Model Building
To establish the uncertainties associated with model building, two models (i.e., one
buih at Colorado State University (CSU Model) and the other at UWO (UWO model))
are used. Both models were tested in the UWO wind tunnel.
Twenty-nine taps under 7 angles of attack are selected. These taps are selected based
on the best coordinate agreement. All of the taps have less than 1ft full scale
corresponding coordinate error between two models.
59
Table 4.8 displayed selected taps and the corresponding full scale coordinate error.
Table 4.8 Coordinate Difference for 29 Selected Taps
CSU UWO CSU UWO

Real distance(ft) Real distance(ft)
Tap# Tap# Tap# Tap#
414 1310 0.5823 206 207 0
507 1301 0.9389 114 114 0.5208
516 1208 0.2604 105 105 0.2604
410 1314 0.78125 409 214 0
503 1305 0.2604 304 212 0.2604
512 1212 0 110 110 0.2604
615 1203 0.2604 216 608 0.604
809 1013 0.8423 311 609 0.5377
813 913 0.5805 405 610 0.4219
801 803 0.5208 305 1105 0.2376
706 804 0.7813 210 1104 0.5208
611 805 0.5208 604 1204 0
605 310 0.2604 511 1213 0.2604
711 308 0
109 109 0.7813
202 202 0.2604
4.2.1 The Comparison of Mean, Standard Deviation, Maximum and

Minimum Pressure Coefficients between Two Models.
The definition of errors between CSU and UWO are given below:
e=c —c (4.3)
Pcsu Puwo
The error term represents errors from mean, standard deviation, maximum, and
minimum pressure coefficients.
60
Figure 4.13 tiirough Figure 4.16 show the scatter plot of the data pairs for the Cp.mean,
Cp.rms, Cp.niax and Cp,min, respectively. A total of 8 angles of attack and 29 taps were
analyzed, making 212 pairs of pressure coefficients on the graph.
• Mean Pressure Coefficients

-1.5 -1 0,5 1 1.5 ——linear(45 deg)
E
i
CSU model Mean Pressure Coefficient
Figure 4.13. The Comparison of Mean Cp between UWO (CSU) and UWO (SLM)
Models.
61
y
ji /
UWO model SD Pressure Coefficients
• SD Pressure Coefficients
,6 -0 4 -0 2 > ^ (1 0.2 ^—Linear (45 Deg)
0.4 0
CSU model SD Pressure Coefficient
Figure 4.14. The Comparison of SD Cp between UWO (CSU) and UWO (SLM) Models.
UWO model MAX Pressure Coefnclents
X • • MAX Pressure Coefficients

^^Linear(45 Deg)
• X*
-0.5 J^K 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 35
CSU model MAX Pressure Coefficient
Figure 4.15. The Comparison of Maximum Cp between UWO (CSU) and UWO (SLM)
Models.
62
' - I-
-^5 -4 -3.6 -3 -2.5 -2 -1,5 1 -0.5 r 0.5

UWOn^ odel MlN Pressure Coefficients
* *i{
• MIN Pressure Coefficients

^—Linear(45 Deg)
• »
• •.
1 •
/ •
L <5_
CSU model MIN Pressure Coefficient
Figure 4.16. The Comparison of Minimum Cp between UWO (CSU) and

UWO (SLM) Models.
Once again, mean and standard deviations show a good match. On the contrary, the
maximum and minimum error terms have a larger scatter.
The mean pressure coefficient error histogram and best-fit distribution are given in
Figure 4.17. The histograms and best-fit distributions for the errors in quadrant I
(positive-positive values) and quadrant III (negative-negative) are given in Figure 4.18
and 4.19, respectively.
Standard deviation, maximum and minimum pressure coefficient error histograms,
and best-fit distributions are given in Figure 4.20, 4.21 and 4.22, respectively.
63
It was established that the logistic distribution provided the best fit to all of the
histograms except for Cp.mean in quadrant 1, where a normal distribution provides the best
fit. The summary of this information is collected in Table 4.9.
Compared to the previous case, the different model buildings cause larger differences
for most of statistic results.
Relative
Frequency 1:9
-0.19 -0.15 ^3 11
Mean Cp Eiror
Figure 4.17. Logistic Distribution (1.83e-2, 2.44e-2) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram.
64
Relative
Frequency
0.0
43.19 -0'15 -Ote .0 04
Menu Q) Eiioi'
Figure 4.18. Normal Distribution (1.16e-2, 7.12e-2) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram
(Quadrant 1).
Relative
Frequency 17.3
-0 12 -0
Mean Cp Error
Figure 4.19. Logistic Distribution (2.1 le-2, 1.72e-2) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram
(Quadrant 3).
65
1
SI T.^
i
Relative
• ..
Frequency 257-
-^ ^
-0 13 .0 B -0 M 0 bo 0 Si 0/ 8 0 3 0.'|7 0^1
SD C p E n o r
Figure 4.20. Logistic Distribution (-6.61e-4, 1.16e-2) Fhs to SD Cp Error Histogram.
26
Relative
Frequency 13
Figure 4.21. Logistic Distribution (-2.23e-2, 0.15) Fits to Max Cp Error Histogram.
66
Relative
Fi-equency 09
Mill Cp Enor
Figure 4.22. Logistic Distribution (-5.00e-2, 0.19) Fhs to Min Cp Error Histogram.
Table 4.9 The Statistic for UWO-CSU model Error Term

Mean Min Max Type
Deviation 1 2
Cp Mean 0.018 0.045 -0.19 0.078 logistic 0.018 0.024
Cp Mean( I) 0.012 0.071 -0.19 0.078 Normal 0.012 0.071
Cp Mean (III) 0.021 0.032 -0.12 0.077 logistic 0.021 0.017
Cp Rms 0.022 0.21 logistic -0.0007 0.012

0.0007 0.066
CpMax -0.022 0.27 -2.03 0.83 logistic -0.022 0.15
CpMin -0.05 0.35 -2.68 0.66 logistic -0.05 0.19
67
4.3 Uncertainties Associated with Wind Tunnel Facilities
As mentioned earlier, three institutions (i.e., UWO, CSU and TTU) all did wind
timnel testing on the stiuctural loads model (SLM model). This provided a basis to
establish the uncertainties associated with wind turmel facilities.
For this investigation, the pressure coefficients summary statistics (i.e., mean, rms,
minimum, and maximum pressure coefficients) from both simulations for each tap and
each angle of attack available are used to establish this uncertainties. Two hundred and
three taps (1 tap not available) imder 8 Eingles of attacks for both rough and smooth
simulation are investigated. So there are 3248 pairs of data. Three group of data pairs
(UWO, CSU), (UWO, TTU) and (CSU, TTU) are compared separately and the errors are
gathered to establish a distribution to fit the total error histogram.
The error terms are defined below:
^1 =^n ~^D (4-4)

1 Puwo Ptlu •> ^ '
^1 =Cr, -'^n (4-5)

^ Ptlu Pcsu ' ^ ^
e^=c -c , (4.6)
^4 = ( S „ . - S„.„) & (S„„ - ^ P . . ) & (^P™, - ^P«.) • (4.7)
The scatter plots show several characters as following:
1. CSU model mean Cp are larger than that of UWO and TTU models.
2. CSU-TTU mean Cp plots has two trunks. The following research proved one is
for smooth flow and another is for rough flow records. The scatter plots for both
68
cases are also given in Appendix B. For rough simulation, the CSU mean pressure
coefficients are much bigger than those of TTU wind tunnel.
3. Big scatter is found for most of plots. Different from the above two sections, more
data are fomid to deviate from 45 degree line.
Repeatedly, logistic distribution provided the best fits to most of the Cp error
histograms except for the UWO-TTU Cp Min (where a LogLogistic distiibution is the
best choice) and the UWO-TTU Cp Mean (quadrant III) (where a Lognorm distribution
fit best).
The error term statistics and best-fit distribution parameters are given in Tables 4.10
through 4.13. The examples of the CSU-TTU scatter plots and error term relative
frequency histograms are given in Figure 4.23 through Figure 4.30; all of the other graphs
are in Appendix B.
1 1*-[
^ m
li>X^
Vn^^
n c iM^H^^ •
|^H^r*«
1 -2.5 -2 -15 -1 J^t^[tf7 7 * •**

p^* 05 1 15
am^^t * * ••
W^*
A^^Kl^ W*^
%
y^^'M^
y^< r*
y ^ * î
• •
- • - •• 3 -
TTU Mean Pressure Coefficient
Figure 4.23. The Comparison of Mean Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel.
69
0.6 0.8
CSU SD Pressure Coefficient
Figure 4. 24. The Comparison of SD Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel.
3-
/ •• • • »
/'•.• • •j^^ • 1
2-5-
^4ji*^*** * ***
TTU Max Pressure CoeWcient
1^
• t n S I ^
^P?^ S
" < h» * 1 1
1— -e-s-" •• -
1
CSU Max Pressure Coefficient
Figure 4.25. The Comparison of Max Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel.
70
CSU Min Pressure Coefficient
Figure 4.26. The Comparison of Min Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel.
Relative
Frequency 36
.0.4 -0 2 00 02 04 07 09 1'
Mean Cp Enor
Figure 4.27. Logistic Distribution (6.90e-2, 8.66e-2) Fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram for
TTU-CSU.
71
Relative
Frequency 97
0.0
-0 31 43.55 -0.19 -012 0.12
SD Cp Enor
Figure 4.28. Logistic Distribution (-3.15e-3, 2.49e-2) Fits to SD Cp Error Histogram for
TTU-CSU.
26
Relative
Frequency 13
0.0
Figure 4.29. Logistic Distribution (0.15, 0.17) Fhs to Max Cp Error Histogram for TTU-
CSU.
72
i
Relative
Frequency 0,8-
00
-2 6 -2 0 -1 3 ^ 7 ?0 ?7 1 3 ?0 26 3.
Mill <'"p En oi
Figure 4.30. Logistic Distiibution (6.58e-2, 0.24) Fhs to Min Cp Error Histogram for
TTU-CSU.
Table 4.10 The Statistic for UWO-TTU Error Term

Statistic Standard Parameter
Mean Min Max Type Parameter 1
Deviation 2(3)
-0.038 -0.42 -0.038
Cp Mean I 0.076 0.30 logistic 0.042
CpMean 0.018 -0.51 0.018
0.064 0.51 logistic 0.035
III
CpMean 0.01 0.078 -0.51 0.76 logistic 0.01 0.043
CpRms -0.001 0.047 -0.16 0.28 logistic -0.001 0.026
CpMax -0.097 0.35 -2.34 1.92 logistic -0.097 0.19
CpMin -0.079 0.51 -2.2 4.57 logistic -0.079 0.28
73
Table 4.11 The Statistic for TTU-CSU Error Term

Statistic Standard
Mean Min Max Type Parameter 1 Parameter 2
Deviation
Cp Mean 1 -0.13 O.Il -0.42 -0.13
0.28 logistic 0.059
CpMean 0.10 -0.10 0.21
0.13 1.11 lognorm 0.12
III
CpMean 0.069 0.16 -0.42 0.045 logistic 0.069 0.087
Cp Rms -0.0032 0.045 -0.31 0.32 logistic -0.0032 0.025
CpMax 0.15 0.32 -2.26 1.92 logistic 0.15 0.17
CpMin 0.066 0.438 -2.14 3.28 logistic 0.066 0.24
Table 4.12 The Statistic for CSU-UWO Error Term

Mean Min Max Type
Deviation 1 2
CpMean 0.085 0.085
0.11 -0.80 0.31 logistic 0.038
I
CpMean -0.086 -0.80 -0.086
0.097 0.092 logistic 0.053
III
CpMean -0.059 0.113 -0.80 0.31 logistic -0.059 0.062
CpRms 0.0042 0.021 -0.11 0.16 logistic 0.0042 0.011
CpMax -0.050 0.21 -1.66 I.l logistic -0.050 0.12
CpMin 0.013 0.37 -1.56 3.1 logistic 0.013 0.21
74
Table 4.13 The Statistic for UWO-CSU-TTU Error Term

Statistic Standard
Mean Min Max Type Parameter 1 Parameter 2
Deviation
Cp -0.51 7.72e-3
7.72e-3 0.093 0.51 logistic 0.051
Mean I
Cp -0.8 4.8e-3
4.8e-3 0.15 1.11 logistic 0.08
Mean III
Cp
1.11 -2.08e-7 0.072
Mean -2.08e-7 0.13 -0.8 logistic
I&III
Cp Rms -4.83e-7 0.04 -0.31 0.28 logistic -4.83e-7 0.022
-2.26 l.I8e-6
CpMax 1.18e-6 0.32 2.34 logistic 0.17
-4.57 1.55e-5
CpMin 1.55e-5 0.45 3.28 logistic 0.25
4.4 Uncertainties Associated with Estimation Techniques
for The Extreme Value Statistics
As discussed in Chapter II, two methods are used to estimate minimum and maximum
values: method I based on segmenting the record into 20 independent parts and using the
minimum and maximum values from each segment to establish the parameters for an
Extreme Value Type I distribution. The method II is described by Rice as a
transformation of the non-Gaussian process into a Gaussian space and estimating the up-
crossing rate of the Gaussian process. Then the up-crossing rate is used to estimate the
mean extreme values.
75
4.4.1 The Comparison for the Structural Load Model (SLM)
The data used to estimate the micertainty associated with two methods is obtained
from the datasets of the University of Western Ontario on the Structural Load Model. The
pressure coefficients summary statistics (i.e., observed single largest maximum, observed
single largest minimum, estimated mean extreme maximum and minimum) from both
flow simulation for all 204 taps from 8 angles of attack are used to establish the errors.
Three groups of data (i.e., observed value and estimated mean extreme value by method
I, observed value and estimated mean extreme value by method II, and extreme value by
both methods) are compared separately. The error term are defined as:
1 Pmethod! PmethodX ' ^ ^^
2 Pobserved Pmethodl ' \ • )
Q-x —C^ — C„ (4.10)

^ Pobserved FmethodX • ^ '
Each group has 204 by 16, which is 3264 data points.
Several points re obvious after observing these graphs:
1. The mean extreme pressure coefficients by method 1 produces compatible
results with the observed value.
2. The mean extieme pressure coefficients by method II induces smaller absolute
values compared to those of observed and Method I values.
76
3. Unlike the above situations in which logistic distribution is the best-fit
distiibution for most of cases, the ExtremeValue distribution and Weibull
distribution are the best for 3 out of 6 error histograms.
The error temi statistics and best-fit distiibution parameters are given in Table 4.14
through 4.16. The example scatter plots and error term histograms between the single
largest and mean extieme Cp by metiiod I are given in Figure 4.31 through Figure 4.34.
All of other graphs can be found in Appendix B.
• Methods comparison
- ^ U n e a r (45 Deg)
Observed
Figure 4.31. The Comparison of Mean Extreme Max Cp by Method I and Observed Max.
77
-14
^—Linear (45 Deg)
Observed
Figure 4.32. The Comparison of Mean Extreme Min Cp by Method I and Observed Min.
Relative
Frequency 72
•0.5 -0.3 -tf2 02 03 05 07 09

Mn.\- Cp Eiror
Figure 4.33. Logistic Distribution Fits (2.74e-3, 3.90e-2) to Observed-Method 1 Max Cp
Error Histogram.
78
Relative
Frequency 33
-1 9 -1 5 -1 1 .0 7 -0 4 ?3 04 07
Mill Cp Enor
Figure 4.34. Logistic Distiibution (-2.1 le-3, 7.61e-2) Fits to Observed-Method 1 Min Cp
Error Histogram.
Table 4.14 The Statistic for Observed-Method I Error Term

Statistic
Mean SD Min Max Type Parameter 1 Parameter 2
CpMax 2.74e-3 0.071 -0.28 0.87 Logistic 2.74e-3 0.039

CpMm -2.1 le-3 0.14 -1.86 0.60 Logistic -2.1 le-3 0.076
Table 4.15 The Statistic for Observed-Method 2 Error Term

Statistic
Mean SD Min Max Type Parameter 1 Parameter 2(3)
CpMax 0.17 0.21 -0.39 1.84 Extremevalue 0.075 0.16
CpMin -0.35 0.48 -5.05 0.61 Weibull 14.42 5.0,(-5.17)
79
Table 4.16 The Statistic for Method 2-Method 1 Error Term

Statistic
Mean SD Min Max Type Parameter 1 Parameter 2
CpMax -0.17 0.19 -1.62 0.33 Logistic -0.17 0.10
Cp Min 0.34 0.45 -0.65 4.19 extremevalue 0.14 0.35
4.4.2 The Detailed Comparison for the CSU Model
The above procedures used all available pressure coefficient data to establish the
imcertainty. The following research gives a detailed comparison of the mean extreme Cp
between the two methods based on an individual tap. The CSU model data are analyzed
in this section. The observed individual peaks and the value of two standard deviations
away from them are shovm in the graph. For each tap, the estimated maximum and
minimum extreme pressure coefficients by two methods are also given in the graph in
order to make a direct comparison.
The y axis in the following graph is the pressure coefficient value while the x axis is
the tap numbers. Once again, a total of 29 taps under 8 AOA for the smooth case are
analyzed. The taps under 0 degree and 45 degree AOA are displayed in Figure 4.35 and
Figure 4.36, respectively. Some observation and conclusion are given below:
I. For the only two taps on the roof (CSU 809, 813), the difference is obvious.
80
2. Once again. Method I provides better fit to the observed value. There are 21 mean
exfreme pressure coefficients beyond two standard deviations of observed value by
using metiiod II, for method I; however, there are only 7 mean extreme pressure
coefficients beyond that.
3. Lastiy, method II is more conservative than method I. Sixty-six percent of the mean
extieme values from method I are bigger than that from method II. Only 22% of the
mean extieme values from method II are bigger than corresponding method II.
Otiier mean extieme Cp are similar by both methods.
Comparison of Peak Pressure Coefficient among two methods and Observed value ODeg
• Method II Est Peak for 3 taps

• Method I est Peak for 3 taps
CSU417 0bsPeak
xCSU507 0bsPeak
scCSU516 0bsPeak
E 0
Numbett1:CSU414(UWO1310) 2:CSU507(UWO 1301) 3:CSU516(UWO 1208))
Figure 4.35. Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients by Two Estimation Methods VS Two
Standard Deviation From Single Largest Cp; OAOA, 3 Taps.
81
Comparison of Peak Pressure Coefficients among two methods and observed value 45 Deg
0.5
• Rice Method Est Peak for 6 taps

• Chris Method Est Peak for 6 taps
S 0
CSU410Obs Peaks
/ CS 503 Obs Peak
»;CSU512 0bsPeak
• CSU615 0bsPeak
+ CSU809 Obs Peak
-CSU813 0bsPeak
Number(1:CSU410 2:CSU503 3:CSU 512 4:CSU615 5.CSU809 6:CSU813)
Figure 4.36. Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients by Two Estimation Methods VS Two
Standard Deviation from Single Largest Cp; 45AOA, 6 Taps.
4.5 The Combined Uncertainties of Model-Building
and Estimate Technique
The mean extreme pressure coefficients are used for a fiuther analysis between the
CSU and UWO models. The research gives a detailed comparison based on individual tap
and tries to establish the influence of tap location.
Data from the same 29 taps of UWO (SLM) and UWO (CSU) are investigated. What
is different, due to our research interest and saving mean extreme Cp data processing
time, only one angle of attack is chosen for each tap. This information is given in detail in
Table 4.17.
82
Table 4.17 Coordinate difference for 29 selected taps
Angle 0 Angle
180
CSU UWO CSU UWO
Tap# Tap# Real distance(ft) Real distance(ft)
Tap# Tap#
414 1310 0.5823 206 207 0
507 1301 0.9389 114 114 0.5208
516 1208 0.2604 105 105 0.2604
Angle 45 Angle
225
CSU UWO CSU UWO
Tap# Tap# Real distance(ft) Real distance(ft)
Tap# Tap#
410 1314 0.78125 409 214 0
503 1305 0.2604 304 212 0.2604
512 1212 0 110 110 0.2604
615 1203 0.2604
809 1013 0.8423
813 913 0.5805
Angle 90 Angle
270
CSU UWO CSU UWO
Tap# Tap# Tap# Tap#
801 803 0.5208 216 608 0.604
706 804 0.7813 311 609 0.5377
611 805 0.5208 405 610 0.4219
Angle
Angle 135
315
CSU UWO CSU UWO
Tap# Tap# Tap# Tap#
605 310 0.2604 305 1105 0.2376
711 308 0 210 1104 0.5208
109 109 0.7813 604 1204 0
202 202 0.2604 511 1213 0.2604
Both the maximum and minimum estimated mean extreme pressure coefficients
by two estimation methods are given in each graph. 16 graphs are plotted
83
corresponding to 8 angles of attack for both the smooth and rough simulation. Two
graphs with all of the data for each simulation are also given.
Several example graphs are given below, with the remainders in Appendix A.
Again, most of taps are on the front wall, however there are several taps on the roof
813 (CSU)-9I3 (UWO); 809 (CSU)-1013 (UWO).
A total of 4 graphs are given as an example. Figure 4.37 and Figure 4.38 include all
available data for smooth and rough simulation individually. Figure 4.39 and Figure 4.40
are taps under 45 and 270 degree angles of attack, separately.
There are several characters indicated in the graphs:
1. Generally, a good match of peak pressure coefficient is observed between the
CSU and UWO model, especially for smooth simulation.
2. The taps near the roof corner show a larger pressure coefficient difference under
cornering wind AOA. There are a total of 4 taps of this kind analyzed: 214 (wall
2); 1204, 1212 (wall 3); 308 (wall 4). Except for tap 1212, all the others show
large disagreement. This tendency is in agreement with the previous research
about observed peak pressure of the TTU test building by Endo[l]
3. The wall edge taps near the ground also display some difference.
4. The only two roof taps show the larger discrepancy under the coming wind AOA.
5. The front wall taps show a very good match.
6. Two estimation methods generally match well.
84
e~|
OAOA
'tl% 45 AOA
90 AOA
135 AOA
180 AOA
225 AOA
1 ' ' ' ,^9«1 2 4 6 1
270 AOA
^ -6 -4 -2- _ J P ^
316 AOA
-Linear (Series9)
/ a
i 8-
CSU Mean Extreme Value
Figure 4.37. Mean Extieme Max& Min Pressure Coefficients Comparison for
CSU & UWO Smooth Model by Two Methods.
• OAOA
• 46 AOA
90 AOA
X 136 AOA
X 180 AOA
• 225 AOA
+ 270 AOA
315 AOA
.-Linear (Series9)
—
Figure 4.38. Mean Extreme Pressure Max &Min Coefficients Comparison for CSU &
UWO Rough Model by Two Methods.
85
" — 6-
..,,
sc -. 4
,0)
"S - - -3-
Ea>
o
O
0)
i_ • CSU410UWO1314
3
in »:CSU809UWO1013
0.
ifl
y^ • CSU813 UW0913
0) ' ' 3 ^ ' ' •—' ' ' • CSU503UWO1305
E ' -4 -3 -2 -1 >^0 1 2 3 4 5 CSU512 UW01212
o
XCSU615UWO1203
c yC
n XyT -2
o
S
o
3
' R_
CSU Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients
Figure 4.39. Mean Extreme Max &Min Pressure Coefficients Comparison of

CSU«feUWO; 45AOA; Smooth.
*V)c.*
0>
'o
it
a
o
O
3
«
ID
0) >CSU216UWO608
1CSU311 UWO609
0) CSU405 UWO610
E
X
O
5
3
Figure 4.40. Mean Extreme Pressure Max &Min Coefficients Comparison of

CSU&UWO; 270 AOA; Smooth.
86
4.6 Total Uncertainties Associated with Wind Tunnel Testing
Assimiing that the uncertainties arise from independent sources, the variances can be
combined as given in equation 4.1. The total variance of the uncertainties associated with
wind tunnel testing are given in Table 4.18:
Table 4.18 Total Uncertainties in Wind Tunnel Testing
Statistic Errors
Standard
Mean Min Max
Deviation
CpMean 1.40E-01 8.29E-01 1.12E+00
1.83E-02
1.39E-02 1.18E-01 5.50E-01 5.22E-01
Cp Mean( I)
2.17E-02 1.50E-0I 8.17E-01 1.12E+00
Cp Mean (III)
2.12E-03 4.59E-02 3.16E-01 3.57E-0I
Cp Rms
1.67E-01 4.78E-01 3.51E+00 2.65E+00
CpMax
3.48E-01 7.55E-01 5.58E+00 5.54E+00
CpMin
87
CHAPTER V
UNCERTAINTIES IN FULL-SCALE AND WIND TUNNEL
PRESSURE COEFFICIENT EXTRAPOLATION
The purpose of this chapter is to estimate the uncertainty in ftill-scale and wind tunnel
pressure coefficient extrapolation by comparing full- and model-scale pressure
coefficients.
Botii rough and smooth cases for three wind tunnel models—CSU, UWO, and
TTU—together with Texas Tech University WERFL building pressure coefficients are
used in this chapter.
First, the statistics as mean, standard deviation, single largest maximum, and
minimum pressure coefficients of 34 taps from the wall and roof are selected for a
general comparison. Then the mean extreme pressure coefficients of several taps are
chosen for fiirther research. To establish the uncertainty, individual tap, area average, and
moving average pressure coefficients are used for comparison.
Two tables are given to illustrate the model and test facilities used to establish
imcertainties in following chapters.
Table 5.1 The Model and Wind Tunnel Facilities used to establish uncertainty in section
5.1
UWO Wind Tunnel CSU Wind Tunnel TTU Wind Tunnel WERFL(variant
(SLM) (SLM) (SLM) roughness)
Smooth Yes * Yes * Yes *
Yes *
Rough Yes * Yes * Yes *
88
Table 5.2 The Model and Wind Tmiiiel Facilities used to establish uncertainty in section
5.2
UWO Wind Tunnel CSU Wind Tunnel TTU Wind Tunnel WERFL
SLM Model Yes #
Yes #
CSU Model Yes#
For Table 5.1 & Table 5.2:

General Statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation, Single Largest, and Minimum
Cp)Analyzed: *
Mean Extieme Pressure Coefficients Analyzed: #
It is necessary to mention that the pressure coefficients of the model- and full-scale
building are all referenced to an eave height that is 13 feet.
5.1 Uncertainties in Mean, Standard Deviation, Maximum and
Mirumum Single Largest Pressure Coefficients between
Full and Model Scale
The pressure coefficients achieved from UWO (SLM), CSU (SLM) and TTU (SLM)
for both rough and smooth simulations. The average of these six set of data are calculated
as a representative of wind timnel mean pressure coefficients and used to compare to fiill-
scale records.
Nine taps from wall 1, Three from wall 2 and twenty-two from roof are picked for
this comparison. Wind angle of attack from 0 to 90 degrees with an interval of 5 degrees
and 90 to 360 with an interval of 45 degrees are selected for the wind tiimiel records. For
frill scale, all runs that fit following criteria are chosen.
1. Stationary wind angle of attack
2. Stationary wind speed
89
3. Wind speed over 15 mph
Achieved full scale and average of wind tumiel records were put in one plot for
comparison. Representative graphs are provided here, with the remainders in Appendix
C. The observations are given by:
1. There are large discrepancies between model- and full-scale Cp, especially for
Minimimi Cp.
2. Wind tunnel results show an obvious imderestimate for minimum value.
3. At the angle of attack causing maximum suction for minimum pressure coefficient,
both the dispersion of full-scale data and the difference between fiiU and model
pressure coefficients are biggest.
4. At the angle of attack causing small suction for minimum pressure coefficient, both
the dispersion of full-scale data and the difference between fiiU and model pressure
coefficients are small.
5. There are larger differences for minimum pressure coefficients of two roof comer
tap 50045(307) and 53045(215) under cornering angle of attacks.
The example plots for tap 10013(203) are given in Figure 5.1 through Figure 5.4. All
of the other graphs are collected in the Appendix C.
90
Angle of Attack
Figure 5.1. Comparison of mean Cp between average model scale and full scale for tap
10013(203).
150 200 250

Angle of Attack
Figure 5.2. Comparison of SD Cp between average model scale and full scale for tap
10013(203).
91
Angle of Attack
Figure 5.3. Comparison of max Cp between average model scale and full scale for tap
10013(203).
Angle of Attack
Figure 5.4. Comparison of min Cp between average model scale and full scale for tap
10013(203).
92
The errors between the full-scale and average wind tunnel model pressure coefficients
are defined by the difference between the full-scale records and interpolated wind tunnel
records that have the same wind angle of attacks.
The errors arc calculated as following:
^ ^Pwind ^Pfull . (5.1)
The errors of mean, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum are then separately
collected. The Best-Fit program (2004) is used to establish the most suitable probabilhy
distiibution on each kind of errors. A total of about 23000 pairs of Cp data are used for
this analysis.
The Best-Fit graphs and a summary table are given below. From the graphs, it is
obvious that the mean and standard deviation errors have small mean and dispersion. On
the contrary, extreme value difference, especially minimum pressure coefficients
difference, is much larger.
Once again, logistic distribution is the best choice for most of cases. Only a beta
distribution was chosen for standard deviation errors. The results are displayed in Figure
5.5 through 5.8 and summarized in Table 5.3.
93
B.QB-
Relative
Frequency is3
•2.B .2 2 -17 -11 -DB O'O O.B 11 17 22 28
Mean Cp Error
Figure 5.5. Logistic(0.14,0.12) distiibution fits to mean Cp error histogram of fiill scale-
wind tunnel comparison.
Relative
Frequency 4 DB
aoo-1.4 -1 1 -DB -OB -a 3 D.O 0.;
SD cp Error
Figure 5.6. Beta(32.18,11.08) * 1.80 + -1.38 distribution fits to SD Cp error histogram of
full scale-wind turmel comparison.
94
Relative
Frequency loa-
DDO
•3 3 -2 7 -2 0 -1 3 -D 7 Q'O OV 13 20 2^' 33
Ma.x Cp Eiror
Figure 5.7. Logistic(0.25,0.18) Distribution fits to max Cp error histogram of frill scale-
wind turmel comparison.
Relative
requency 04-
1\
•\
00
-5 E -3 7 -1 9 ? 9 ?7 56 75 93
Min Cp Error
Figure 5.8. Logistic(0.66,0.63) distribution fits to min Cp error histogram of frill scale-
wind turmel comparison.
95
Table 5.3 Statistics for error histogram and PDF distribution
Errors in statistics Error(Uncertainty) Distribution

Statistic Mean Std Dev Min Max Type Parameter 1 Parameter 2
(and 3)
CpMean 0.14 0.23 -2.42 2.79 Logistic 0.14 0.12
Cp Rms -0.04 0.12 -1.38 0.421 Beta 32.18 11.08
CpMax 0.25 0.33 -3.32 2.56 Logistic 0.25 0.18

CpMin 0.66 1.16 -2.75 9.32 Logistic 0.66 0.63
Considering the error terms of all mean Cp data pairs (both quadrant I and III data),
the mean statistics is 0.14 as in the first column of the first row. Followed is the standard
deviation of error terms, which is 0.23. The third and fourth data are maximum and
minimum of error terms statistics respectively. Then a logistic distribution is decided as
the best fit to the error terms with the first parameter of 0.14 and second parameter of
0.12. The definitions of parameters are given in Table 4.7.
The second through fourth rows illustrate standard deviation, maximum and
minimum Cp error terms, respectively.
5.2 Comparison of Estimated Mean Extieme Pressure
Coefficients
Part of the large errors for the minimum and maximum pressure coefficients may be
accredited to the lack of consistency by using the observed single largest pressure
coefficients. Mean extreme pressure coefficients are better since h is based on the fiill
96
time series information and is more consistent. It is of interest to investigate the mean
extreme maximum and minimum pressure coefficients for some selected taps.
Among several factors that have effects on the pressure coefficients of low-rise
buildings, turbulence intensity is one of the most important. The roughness length has a
direct relationship witii the turbulence intensity. In the above research, the arithmetic
average of pressure coefficients between rough and smooth case are used to compare full-
scale records to develop the uncertainty. This time, it is our interest to check the
relationship between model- and full-scale peak value based on the roughness.
Representative front wall, wall comer, and roof comer are chosen for this detailed
analysis. Both the time series for two models, UWO (SLM) and UWO (CSU), and twenty
full-scale runs with similar angle of attack are selected. Then the estimated hourly mean
extieme pressure coefficients of these taps are achieved and compared. Subsequently, the
graphs are generated based on the estimated peak value and corresponding roughness. To
make a more comprehensive comparison, the mean hourly extieme Cp of individual taps,
the moving average, and the area average mean extreme Cp are compared.
For the angles 0, 45, 90, 315 degrees, 20 runs (a run means an independent time
series) with the best angle agreement to the UWO (SLM) records for 4 AOA are chosen.
The dispersions of the angle in these 20 runs range from 7.2 degree to 14.5 degree for
different AOA.
Again, certain limhation applied for the selection of fiill scale time series.
1. Stationary wind angle of attack
2. Stationary wind speed
97
3. Wind speed over 15 mph
For selected taps, the coordinate difference is less than 1 ft in full scale.
5.2.1 The Comparison of Individual Tap Estimated Mean Extreme
Pressure Coefficient between Full and Model Scale
As a representative, 2 taps from the wall (708, 114) and 3 taps from the roof (801,
802, 1113) are chosen. As mentioned above for each AOA, 20 fiill-scale runs and 4 wind
turmel time series (rough and smooth case for UWO (SLM) and UWO (CSU)) are
picked. The time series of these taps rnider 4 AOA incoming wind are analyzed to obtain
the maximum and minimum estimated mean hourly extreme values based on two
methods.
Figiu-e 5.9 and Figure 5.10 are two examples of the estimated mean hourly extreme
pressure coefficient comparison graphs for tap 708 (UWO) on wall 2. All of the other
graphs are collected in Appendix D.
The x axis is roughness length and y axis is the estimated mean hourly extreme
pressure coefficients. The corresponding full-scale model tap numbers are given together
with the UWO tap numbers put in the bracket. Surprisingly the graphs do not show a
good match at the low roughness length. Several observations are made:
1. An overall underestimation of model-scale estimated peak pressure coefficients at
low roughness is obvious and generally consistent.
2. Full-scale data hself also do not display a good relationship based on roughness
especially at low roughness. A big dispersion is observed.
98
3. However, the two wind tunnel model peaks generally match well.
4. Two methods match ok for most of taps except those on the roof
Because of these interesting findings, more analysis is processed and the procedures
are listed in the following section.
«
•!•. % • |9I
•• , *
^ 002 I 0.08 0 1 0 12 0.14 0.16 0 8
004 006
u
•
•
• Fuii scale Method 1
* •
• •
• « •
• • • UWO Method 1
• CSU Method i
t
*• • •
Roughness Length (z„)
Figure 5.9. Three Model Comparison of Tap 22008(708) Under 315 Degree AOA by
Using Method I.
99
0.6
•
•
i i!
0 - ,«L.
* r 1 •
•
0.02 0tl4 0.06 0,08 0.1 * 0.12 0.14 0.16 0. 18
1
-0.5
-1
a • • Full scale Method II

o *
• • UWO Method ii
• • CSU Method II
-1.5 • •
•
-2 •
-2.5 •
-3 Roughness Length (z„)
Figure 5.10. Three Model Comparison of Tap 22008(708) Under 315 Degree AOA by
Using Method II.
5.2.2 The Comparison Based on the Moving Averaged
Time Series
The mean extreme Cp based on moving average full-scale time series achieved and
compared to that of wind tunnel records. It is believed to be a fair comparison because
they will be sampled at the same relative frequency.
Below is the introduction of the transfer process. The time scale can be determined
using equation:
Ri^Ri/Rv (5.2)
100
where R refers the ratio between model-scale and full-scale parameter while the subscript
T for time, the subscript L represents the length, and V represents velocity.
The UWO wind turmel used a velocity scale of 3:2, and then the equivalent model-scale
time for the full-scale time series is calculated as follows:
Tn,=Tfs*(Lm/Lfs)*(VfsA^nO (5-3)
=900*1/100*2/3
=6sec
where (Tm is equivalent model scale time scale for the fiill scale time series)
Tfs is Full scale time length
Lm, Lfs are length of model, fiill scale building
Vfs, Vm are mean wind speed at eave height of fiill, model scale building.
Then, the moving average length of full scale is calculated as following:
Sfs=Ufs/(f„*Tni) (5-4)
= 27000/(500*6)
=9
where Tm is moving average length of fiill scale
Ufs is total pressure coefficient values in the fiill-scale time series
fmis the frequency of model scale
This means after substituting the original fiill-scale pressure coefficient value by
average of consecutive nearby 9 values, they will be sampled at the same relative
frequency.
The next step is, then, apply this resuh and get the moving averaged time series.
101
The moving average technique used here may be written as (Smithe, 1992)
1 '*'
(^P.iaAO = — Y.C,{t-hi-l) t=l,2,...,N-M+l, (5.5)
where Cp(t) = original pressure coefficient time history being averaged
Cpjo)' (0 = moving averaged value at instant, t,
t= index representing the reference point in the time history
M= Number of points used in the average, equal to averaging time multiplied by
sampling rate.
N= Total number of points in the original pressure coefficient time history equal
to the time length of the original pressure coefficient time history multiplied by
sampling rate
The original 15 minute field data runs sample the pressure taps at a rate of 30 Hz;
thus, the time duration of each pressure peak is 1/30-th of a second. A new time history
with the 0.3 second averaging time can be produced by applying above technique. The
following graph shows the record of a moving averaged time series and the
corresponding original time series.
However, the difference is not obvious. The peak values are slightly smaller than
those in the original time series. It is illustrated by using full-scale run 350 as an example.
The minimum pressure coefficient for original time series is -1.496 as illustrated in
Figure 5.12; while for moving average time series h is -1.478 as shown in Figure 5.11:
102
moving average time series of full scale run35D Col3D
xlO
Figure 5.11. Moving Average Time Series for Full Scale Data.
Full Scale time series Run350 Col30
V in
Figure 5.12. Original Time Series for Full Scale Data.
Based on the full-scale moving average time series, the estimated mean extreme
pressure coefficients are achieved against the model-scale estimated mean extieme
103
\'alues. The following are two examples of the comparison based on moving averaged
pressure coefficients.
The Cp of tap 11508 under 0 degree AOA for original time series are given in Figure
5.13 and Figure 5.14 while the Cp of the same tap for moving average time series are
given in Figure 5.15 and Figure 5.16 to be compared. There is a small reduction in the
difference between model and fiill scale; however, model-scale peak values are still
imderestimated compared to full-scale peaks.
• •
•
• • • •
*
•
• * *
• •
# Full scale Method 1
• UWO Method 1
CSU Method 1
1 « «.01 « 1^02 ^ «.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 .0.09 01

• • •
•• •
Roughness Length (zo)
Figure 5.13. Three Model Comparison of Tap 11508(114) under 0 degree AOA by Using
Method I.
104
4
3.5
?
3 *%
**> • • •
• • * *•
2.5
*• '
2
5" 15 * Full scale Method II
• UWO Method II
1 CSU Method II
0.5
0
1 9.J2 ^^.03 0.04 0.05 0.06» 0.07 0.08 0.09 01
- > .*"^ •
n
-0.5
-1
R o u g h n e s s Length (Zj)
Figure 5.14. Three Model Comparison of Tap 11508(114) under 0 Degree AOA by Using
Method II.
4
• •
• •
*
3-
*
•
•
•
• • •
• Full scale Method 1

O 2
• UWO Method i
CSU Method 1
1 •
0-
• «01 • (^02 ^ «03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 1^0.09 01
1 • •
•
•• •
-1 J
Roughness Length (Zo)
Figure 5.15. Three Model Comparison of Taps 11508(114) under 0 Degree AOA by
Using Method I (Moving Average).
105
Roughness Length (zo)
Figure 5.16. Three model comparison of taps 11508(114) under 45 degree AOA by using
method II (moving average).
5.2.3 The Comparison Based on 20 Independent
Full-Scale Runs
The first method used 20 independent peaks from one time series and fit them to a
Fisher-Tippet Type 1 extreme value distiibution to get the estimated mean extieme
pressure coefficients. We now have 20 absolutely independent fiill-scale runs, and it may
be usefiil to get the estimated mean hourly extieme value based on 20 single largest peaks
from these 20 runs.
106
Below is the Table 5.4 for several example taps. The average roughness for 20 full-
scale runs is 0.035. It is obvious that in most cases, the model results were
underestimated.
Table 5.4 The compassion between model and full scale hourly mean extreme Cp by
using 20 full scale nms
Tap# 45 AOA 20Runs with average roughness of 0,035 ft

11508(114) 20-1 Methodl Metiiod 1 Method 2
FULL UWO CSU UWO CSU
Smooth Rough
(0.01) (0.087) Smooth Rough Smooth Rough Smooth Rough
Max 2.36 1.50 2,32 1,33 2,39 1,60 2,51 1,47 2,40
Min -1.65 -0.25 -0,63 -0,13 -0,45 -0,23 -0,46 2,51 -0,36
Smooth Rough
22008(708) FULL (0,01) (0,087) CSU UWO CSU
Ma.\ 2.18 1,40 2,33 1,46 2,10 1,42 2,40 1,44 2,36
Min -0.82 -0.14 -0,44 -0,091 -0,37 -0,89 -0,36 -0,083 -0,33
50320(801) FULL UWO CSU UWO CSU
Smooth Rough
(0,01) (0.087) Smooth Rough Smooth Rough Smooth Rough
Max 0.154 0,010 0,31 0,051 0,28 0,0003 0,34 0,072 0,25
Min -1.68 0,010 -1,14 -0,84 -1,36 -0,75 -1,31 -0,90 -1,47
Smooth Rough
Max 0.28 -0,0016 0.23 -0,071 0,20 0.046 0,22 -0,027 0,21
Min -1.52 -0.83 -1.37 -1,04 -1,57 -0,98 -1,50 -1,08 -1,76
Smooth Rough
Max 0.164 0.14 0.40 0.12 0,31
Min -3.6341 -0.98 -1,35 -0 96 -1,58
5.2.4 Comparison Based on the Area Averaged Time Series
Most of the statistical studies, either for the fiill-scale or model-scale models of the
TTU building, have focused on point pressures. However, the research of area averaged
pressure coefficient can also provide some usefiil information. For instance, practical
107
design loads for stiuctural components of low-rise buildings, such as panels and roof
sheathing, should be determined by overall pressure acting on the areas associated with
the size and shape of the components in the form of area-averaged pressures.
More important here, generally a more stable pressure coefficient distribution is
expected for area averaged taps, so we may check to see if a better match is achieved
based on the area averaged time series.
The equation of calculation of area average time series is:
where Cp is the pressure coefficient time series
Ai is the tiibutary area of Tap i
Five area from wall and roof are selected for the comparison. The graph is displayed
in Figure 5.17:
108
\J. \2 ~f^ •"r^ --. 1/)
IX
-1-;^; +^ +;?; Q
_J
nj ru O
Jt t-
•N V)
•" o f^
_L 1 °
• o 4
U"i
+ +0 -^-(- 4
b
o
to
+1 "X-
4- 4-r 2+ F^4
m bln
Areo 4
no
-^
cr- +^ + + 4- - 4
i?- n •i-g s""
D
03
cr> 0^ 0
+1 +1 CC_^
<
CD
00
6 I
+° +° e^ CM
00
4-S +s 3-t
i n
ro
34' 29
Aran 6
4-S
LD
+° S^ - LO
Area 5
CU
_ Kl
4-S 4-5 ^^ + +
CM
Aren .1 CD
LO in
ro
+S S-i
OJ
OJ aj
-1- S J
-»-
c\j OJ
in vD rr "^
+
2074-
Fc-, 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- "5^
in rvj
OJ
ru nj nj
I-S += += -I-S -i-S S4

4-~ nj
1-2 -t-2 + S 4-S +2 =4- +2 2-1

r- 4-S
.^ Area 1
I-',
IT
109
Figure 5.18 and Figure 5.19 are two examples of estimated mean hourly extreme
pressiue coefficients comparison plots for Area 4 under 315 degree AOA.
The observations are made below:
1. Generally, model- and full-scale peak value match slightly better; however, the
discrepancy between model- and full-scale minimum mean hourly extreme Cp is
still obvious. The comparison of Area 4 (compared to individual tap 718
comparison as shown in figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11) under 315 degree AOA are
given in Figure 5.18 and Figure 5.19. Others are put in Appendix E.
2. Two methods generally match well.
0
*l\ •••
li 0,02 0.04 0.06 0.08 01 0.12 0.14 0.16 0. 8
1
-0,5 •
• •
-1
Q. • • Full scale Method 1
• ' . • • UWO Methodl
-1,5 • • «
t
•
•
-2
-2,5
•
-3 - R o u g h n e s s Length (Zo)
Figure 5.18 Three model comparison of Area 4 under 315 degree AOA by using
method I
110
0.02 0tl4 0.06 0,08 01 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
a • Fuii scale Metiiod II

o
• UWOiVlethodll
Roughness Length (Zg)
Figure 5.19 Three model comparison of area 4 under 315 degree AOA by using
method II
111
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
The destination of this research is to establish the uncertainties associated with the
wind tunnel testing and fiill-scale to wind turmel pressure coefficient extrapolation by
comparing the model- and full-scale pressure coefficients. Several primary investigations
are given by:
1. The use of different wind tunnels contributes the largest uncertainties to the wind
turmel pressure coefficients. The reason is under investigation.
2. There is an obvious underestimation of the model-scale pressure coefficients
(especially mhiimum pressure coefficients) compared to corresponding full-scale
peaks.
3. Full- and model-scale area average pressure coefficients match slightiy better, but
the discrepancy still exists.
The detailed investigations are given below.
6.1.1 Uncertainties Associated with Wind Tunnel Pressure Coefficients
It is our interest to compare the records and to tiy to establish an uncertainty
associated with wind turmel test based on:
1. Repeatability
2. Model-building
112
3. Use of different wind tunnels (simulation and data acquisition systems)
4. Estimation techniques for extreme value statistics.
The Original and repeat test pressure coefficients generally match very well;
however, the plots for maximum and minimum pressure coefficients show larger scatter.
This is especially obvious for minimum value.
The mean, standard deviation, observed single largest maximum and minimum
pressure coefficients are compared. The errors are fitted by best-fit probability
distiibution as was undertaken for the repeatability check. Once again, the single largest
minimum values show larger differences than other statistics. The difference is larger
than that of the repeating test.
Three institutions' (i.e., UWO, CSU, and TTU) wind tunnel pressure coefficients are
used to develop the uncertainty of different wind tunnels. Generally, the CSU model
mean Cp are larger than that of the UWO and TTU models. Furthermore, for rough
simulation, the CSU mean pressure coefficients are much larger than those of UWO wind
tunnel. For smooth simulation, however, the difference is much smaller.
Then, two estimation techniques for mean extieme value statistics are checked. First,
all of useful fiill-scale mean extieme pressure coefficients and UWO (SLM) model
pressure coefficients are calculated by two methods and compared. Then, a detailed
comparison of the mean extreme pressure coefficients is conducted. All of the
comparisons show the first method (based on extieme value type one distiibution)
matches better to the observed single largest value. The second method is much more
conservative.
113
Finally, The mean extreme pressure coefficients are calculated and compared
between CSU and SLM models. The taps near the roof corner and wall edge show large
differences. The front wall taps (imder direct front wind AOA) show a better match.
Because this section associated with both the uncertainties of different model and
estimation method, it is list separately.
6.1.2 Uncertainties Derived from Full-scale and Wind Turmel

Pressure Coefficient Comparison
Both the mean hourly extieme Cp and the other statistics of pressure coefficients are
compared to build the uncertainty associated with model- and fiill-scale test.
The comparison of single taps shows a stable result that there is an obvious
underestimate of the model-scale pressure coefficients (especially minimum pressure
coefficients) compared to corresponding full-scale peaks. It is even more obvious at the
angle of attack causing maximum suction.
Subsequently, the mean hourly extreme pressure coefficients are used for fiirther
investigation. It is still true that the model resuhs underestimate the fiill-scale minimum
mean extieme pressure coefficients (low roughness). For the mean extreme Cp of the
wall edge or roof taps under the comer angle of attack, this tendency is more obvious.
Furthermore, generally two estimation methods used to obtain mean extieme Cp match
well, except for those on the roof
The technique of moving average is applied on the fiill-scale time series. The peaks
based on the new time series are achieved and compared to those of model scale. The
resuh shows the underestimation of the model scale still dominates.
114
An idea comes from method I, which selects the 20 largest peaks, respectively, from
20 full-scale runs. These peaks were used to fit to the Extreme Value Type I distribution
to get the mean extieme pressiu-e coefficients. Since the peaks from different runs ensure
the absolute independence from each other, it excludes the possibility of non-independent
peaks used in the above methods. The results, however, still show a generally big
difference from the wdnd tunnel results.
Lastly, an area average technique is used on the comparison. Again, a little better
matching is achieved, but the difference is not eliminated.
6.2 Recommendations for Further Research
On the basis of the research presented in this thesis, the following topics are
recommended for fiirther study:
1. An investigation of the reason for the larger discrepancy among different wind
tunnel records is needed.
2. Further investigation of area average pressure coefficients is desired.
3. The presented research on the comparison of fiill- and model-scale mean extreme
pressure coefficients is mainly related to fiill-scale records with low roughness. A
fiirther exploration of records with high roughness is deshed, which could provide
a fiill comparison between model- and frill scale-pressure coefficients.
4. The presented study on wind effects on low-rise building is mainly focused on the
pressure coefficients. An investigation of load factor for the low-rise building is
desired.
115
REFERENCES
Bean, M.A. (2001). Probability: The Science of uncertainty with applications to

investments, insiuance and engineering. The Brooks/Cole Series in Advanced
Mathematics, Pacific Grove, CA.
Palisade Corporation. (2002). Best-fit (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. Newfield, NY.
Bienkiewicz, B., & Yawei, S., (1992). Local wind loading on the roof of a low-rise
building. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 45, 11-24.
Campbell, J., (1995). Wind engineering research field laboratory site characterization (A
Master's Thesis in Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University, 1995).
Dalgliesh, W.A., Templin, J.T., & Cooper K.R., (1979). Comparisons of wind turmel and
full sale building surface pressures with emphasis on peaks. Proceedings of 5'
Intemational Conference On Wind Engineering Fort Collins, Colorado, 8-14, 553-565.
Eaton, K.A. (1976). Cladding and the wind. Proc. ASCE. Vol. 102, No. ST5, 1043-1053.
Filliben, J.J. (1975). The probability plot correlation coefficient test for normality,
Technometrics, 111-117.
Gioffre, M., Grigoriu,M., Kasperski, M., & Simiu, E. (2000). Wind induced peak bending
moments in low-rise building frames. J. Eng. Mech, 126(8), 879-881.
Grigoriu, M. (1995). Applied non-Gaussian processes. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.
Gumbel, E.J., 1954: "Statistic Theory of Extreme Values and Some Practical
Applications," U.S. Dept. of commerce, Nat. Bur. Stand. Applied Mathmatics Series 33,
1954.
116
Letchford, C.W., and Metha, K.C. (1993). The distribution and correlation of fluctuation
pressures on the Texas Tech Building, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics. 50 (1993), 225-234 Elsevier.
Levitan, M.L., and Metha, K.C. (1991). Texas Tech Field Experiments for wind loads
Part I& Part II. Proceedings of the 8^'' International Conference on Wind Engineering,
July 8-12, 1991, 1565-1588.
Math Works, Inc. (2000). Matlab Reference Manual Version 6. Math Work, Inc., Natick,
Mass.
Lou, J.J. (1981). Extieme Value Analysisof Peak Wind Pressures on Building. (M.S.
Thesis, Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, CO, 1981).
Mayne, J.R. and Cook, N.J. (1978). On Design Procedures for Wind Loading. Building
Research Establishment Current Paper, CP25/78, 1978.
Minciarelli, F., Gioffre, M., Grigoriu, M., and Simiu, E. (2001). Estimates of Extreme
Wind Effects and Wind Load Factors: Influence of knowledge uncertainties. Probability
Engmeering Mechanics 16 (2001), 331-340.
NIST, SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. Retiieved April 27, 2004, from
http://www.itI.nist.gov/div898/handbook
Okada, H., and Ha, Y-C. (1992). Comparison of Wind Tunnel Pressure Measurement
Tests on the Texas Tech Building. Joumal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics. 41-44 (1992), 1601-1612.
Peterka, J.A. (1982). Predicting peak pressure vs. direct measurement 313-319. wind
tiinnel modeling for Civil Engineering application, Ed T.A. Reinhold, Cambridge
University Press.
Rice, S.O. (1954). Mathematical analysis of random noise. Select papers on noise and
stochastic processes, N. Wax, ed., Dover, New York.
117
Sadek F. and Simiu E. (2002). Peak Non-Gaussian Wind Effects for Database-Assisted
Low-Rise Building Design. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Vol. 128, N0.5, May 1,
2002.
Smithe, J.R. (1992). A Dictionary of Statistical Terms (5"' ed). Longman Scientific and
Technical, NY.
Vickery, P.J., Surry, D and Davenport A.G. (1985). Some Interesting Findings.
Proceedings of the 6^'^ Colloquium on Industrial Aerodynamics, Part 1, Aachen, June 19-
21.1985
Weisstein, E.W. (1999). Probability and Statistics. Mathworld. Retrieved June 2004,
from http://mathworId.wolfram.com/topics/ProbabilityandStatistics.html
118
APPENDIX A:
GPIAPHS FOR THE COMPARISON OF MEAN
EXTREME MAX&MIN PRESSURE
COEFFICIENTS FOR CSU & UWO
MODELS BY TWO
ESTIMATION METHODS
119
•- 8-
?. ;jfc^
*
OAOA
5o •
45 AOA
E 90 AOA
§X X 135 AOA
111 X 180 AOA

' -6 -4 -2- Jfî 1 2 4 6 1 • 225 AOA
+ 270 AOA
-
315 AOA
i y^ m
•Linear (SerlesO)
3
•^ •
y ^ " ii
i — ^ _e-
Figure A.l. Mean Extieme Max &Min Pressure Coefficients Comparison for CSU &
UWO Smooth Model.
_ _,g_
^ X
xJE»x
• OAOA
• 45 AOA
y^-^ 90 AOA
i X 136 AOA
X 180 AOA
1 -4 -2» J t3f*( 1 2 4 6 1
• 225 AOA
-B -6 + 270 AOA
- 316 AOA
1 r
X
m
— L i n e a r (Series9)
1 X
•
^ - " •• " — 6 -
Figure A.2. Mean Extreme Pressure Max &Min Coefficients Comparison for CSU &
UWO Rough Model.
120
. a-s,,-,,,. —
—3-
UWO IVIean Extreme Pressure Coefficients
—2rS-
y^*
y^ •
1 M-
• CSU414UWO1310
• CSU507 UWO1301
CSU516 UWO1208
5 -1 -0.5 y / ^ 0.5 1 1,6 2 25 3 36
Figure A. 3. Mean Extreme M a x & M i n Pres,'?l]re C n f i f f i r . i p n t s r n m n n ri c n n n - f

CSU«S:UWO; OAOA; Smooth.
• CSU410UWO1314
»:CSU809UWO1013
• CSU813UW0913
• CSU503UWO1305
CSU512UW01212
XCSU615UWO1203
Figure A.4. Mean Extreme Pressure Max &Min Coefficients Comparison of

CSU&UWO; 45 AOA; Smooth.
121
- 6-1 - - .-
4 — -^
c
0)
it
«
o
O
S
3 ^y^ •
W
10
>CSU611 UWO805
£ 1 ^ / ^
Q. I CSU706 UWO804
0)
CSU801 UWO803
E
£
•s i -2 -1 y^\ 1 2 3 4 li
111
c
n
o>
S
o ^~ -2
3
AJ
CSU IVIean Extreme Pressure CoefTicients
Figure A. 5. Mean Extreme Max& Min Pressure Coefficients Comparison of

CSU&UWO; 90AOA; Smooth.
• CSU605UWO310
•iCSU711 UWO308
CSU109UWO109
< CSU202 UWO202
Figure A.6. Mean Extreme Max& Min Pressure Coefficients Comparison of

122
Pressure CoefTicients
— • 3 -
: 2-5- *m y ^
• yr
1-S—
• CSU206 UWO207
• CSU114UW0114
E CSU105 UWO105
g
UWO Mea lExt
5 -1 -0,5 yî 0-5 1 1.5 2 2,5 3 35
-1-5-
Figure A.7. Mean Extieme Max& Min Pressure Coefficients Comparison of

UWO Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients
yr^ a
*\y
• CSU409UWO214
5 - 4 - 3 - 2 -1 y<K 1 1 2 3 , • CSU304UWO212
CSU110UWO110
XCSU101 UWO101
y^ m
y/"^ •
^ . ^ •

123
y^
y^
• CSU216UWO608
> -4 -3 -2 -1 y ^1 1 2 3 . • CSU311 UWO609
CSLI406LIWO610
Figure A.9. Mean Extieme Max& Min Pressure Coefficients Comparison of

CSU&UWO;270AOA; Smooth.
^
y ^
• CSU210UW01104
j -4 -3 -2 -1 y< K1 1 2 3 • CSU604 UW01204
CSU511 UW01213
•x*^
>^
y ^ • n

124
r — —- - " " 6-|
c
(U " yr
"5
o
o V*
3
10
U)
u • CSU414UWO1310
a. • CSU507UWO1301
0)
CSU516UWO1208
E
-1 -2 -1 • t ' t f * 1 1 2 3 4 5 1
i
:3
^-
Figure A.l 1. Mean Extieme Max& Min Pressure Coefficients Comparison of

CSU&UWO; OAOA; Rough.
• CSU410UWO1314
XCSU809UWO1013
• CSU813UW0913
• CSU503UWO1305
CSU512UW01212
XGSU615UWO1203

CSU&UWO; 45AOA; Rough.
125
__ c
»
o
O
£
3
M
W >CSU611 UWO805
£ I CSU706 UWO804
Q.
« CSU801 UWO803
E
£
IS i -2 -1 yC" 1 2 3 4 /
tu
E *yr
O
5
3
1 ^ _
Figure A. 13. Mean Extieme Max& Min Pressure Coefficients Comparison of

• CSU216UWO608
• CSU311 UWO609
1 CSU405 UWO610

126
'S
o
o
M
£ • CSU206 UWO207
• CSU114UW0114
a. CSU105UWO105
E
£
lU
a
S
o
3

* y— * •
• CSU409UWO214
2 4 f • CSU304UWO212
! -6 ^ -2 y^'^
CSLI110UWO110
XCSU101 UW0101
yy%, X
y^ * •

127
-- - - S--|
£a> ym
• y,
o
o
£ 2- y^ y^ *
3
M • CSU216UWO608
W
1- • CSU311 UWO609
£ CSU405 UWO610
Q.
0)
-T -0^
E
I
111
-i -2 -1
y^
J ^ ^1
+"
1 2 3 4 1
c
O
IS
0)
*-
5
3 i1
-3-

— 6-
42
OMean Extrer^ le Pressure Co efflcler
4yy
• CSU210UWO1104|
3 - 6 ^ - 2 y ^ 1. 1 2 4 1
• CSU604UWO1204
CSU511 UWOI2I3I
yr •
5
3
_ _ B-

128
APPENDIX B:
SCATTER PLOTS AND BEST-FIT PROBABILITY
DISTRIBUTIONS FOR WIND
TUNNELUNCERTAINTIES
129
Mean Pressure Coefficients
g -2 'linear(4Sdeg)
CSU model Mean Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.l. The comparison of mean Cp between UWO(CSU) and UWO(SLM) models.
0:6-
Xy
^«»
*^
issure Coeffic ents
JfF *
• SD Pressure Coefficients
——Linear (45 Deg)
^-0 6 -0.4 -0,2 / i 1 0.2 0,4 0
UWO model S
. -y^ -e-4-
-0:6-
CSU model SD Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.2. The comparison of SD Cp between UWO(CSU) and UWO(SLM) models.
130
• MAX Pressure Coefficients
Llnear(45 Deg)
CSU model MAX Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.3. The comparison of Maximum Cp between UWO(CSU) and UWO(SLM)

Models.
,5 -A -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 JQ ' 0.5

UWO model MIN Pressure Coefficients
• tj^ 1 5
• **yl* • MIN Pressure Coefficients
Unear(45 Deg)
• *y* 4. *
y •
/ •
CSU model MIN Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.4. The comparison of Minimum Cp between UWO(CSU) and UWO(SLM)

Models.
131
258
Relative
Frequency 129
ool I I
-0 13 .0 15 -0'1
Memi Cp Eiror
Figtue B.5. Logistic distribution (1.83e-2, 2.44e-2) fits to mean Cp error histogram.
15.3
Relative
Frequency 77
0,0
fl,19 -0.15 -0,11 -0, 0,11
Mean Cp Error
Figure B.6. Normal distribution (1.16e-2, 7.I2e-2) fits to mean Cp error histogram
(Quadrant 1).
132
346
Relative
Frequency 17 3
00
-012 -0
Mean Cp Enor
Figure B.7. Logistic distiibution (2.1 le-2, 1.72e-2) fits to mean Cp error histogram
(Quadrant 3).
Relative
Frequency 257
0,00 0,13 017 0.21

SD Cp EiTor
Figure B.S. Logistic distribution (-6.61e-4, 1.16e-2) fits to SD Cp error histogram.
133
Relative
Frequency 13
0,31 1 22 1 ,B2
Max Cp Error
Figure B.9. Logistic distribution (-2.23e-2, 0.15) fits to max Cp error histogram.
Relative
Frequency 09
00
Min Cp En or
Figure B.IO. Logistic distribution (-5.00e-2, 0.19) fits to min Cp error histogram.
134
UWO Mean Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.l 1. The comparison of mean Cp between UWO and TTU Wind Turmel.
1,2
A yy A
A
A
yy^ A
y ^ A
0.6
ît^^^^KffiL
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

UWO SD Pressure coefficient
Figure B.12. The comparison of SD Cp between UWO and TTU Wind Tunnel.
135
j^.
1 3TS-
3-
/ S * Â
X/ A A * i » . A. *" A*%
V** A * A
2S- / *A 4 / iA \ A
TTU Max Pressure coefficient
•*y . V A A4 A *
A IIJIAVKA-V * -'A
2-
i
1-*-
\i
T / ^ AA
R^
^^% 1 2 3 4 5 (
UWO Max Pressure coefficient
Figure B.l 3. The comparison of Max Cp between UWO and TTU Wind Tunnel.
- - — - - -Z-|
A*t
4 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2
A A AA
A * A«J||
AiOH
BB^ A
A AASM^^^^HH P\A 2-
fA
Â *t^^^^* *
s A
A* -.y^*
A
A
A* " y
A
A A ^ / ' ^
yr
A
A .B-
_ . • - 1 * -
UWO Min Pressure coefficient
Figure B.l 4. The comparison of Min Cp between UWO and TTU Wind Tunnel.
136
?-,
6-
5-
• yr
• •
4-^
• t
3-
* * ^Jai^^^ 4t*
^ * 1 2 3 4 5 6
-V-
UWO Max Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.15. The comparison of Mean Cp between CSU and UWO Wind Turmel.
1,4
• yy^
1,2
•y"^
'c
at
o 1
E
01
o
o *y**
0)
3 08 • 9^
Iff
£
Q.
O
(0
3 0,6
in
o
0,4 •
0,2
4P»^^
0 1
) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 16
C
UWO SD Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.l6. The comparison of SD Cp between CSU and UWO Wind Tunnel.
137
:,
6-
5-
• y
* * yy^
4-
* t
3- * 4 X ^ ^ \ < *•*
2-
• •
^ • 1 2 3 4 5 6
1-
UWO Max Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.l 7. The comparison of Max Cp between CSU and UWO Wind Turmel.
4 -12 -10 - 8 - 6 - 4 -2 ^ ;<

•4
-^«
• ^
" ••
•
•
•
y\ •
*
^y"^ 12-
— -<Ji-
UWO Min Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.I 8. The comparison of Min Cp between CSU and UWO Wind Tunnel.
138
-1T6GE+00-
S-BOE-01-
o -3.00fe+00 -2 50E+00 -2 OOE*00 -1 50E+00 -1 OOE+00 -5 00E-! 500E-01 1 OOE+00 1 50E+00
O
S
SOOClOO
Figure B.I 9. The comparison of Mean Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel
1,4
06 0,£ 1.2
CSU SD Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.20. The comparison of SD Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel.
139
Figure B.2I. The comparison of Max Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel.
^^
•««»«i
-* *—>!^^rlwfll^* ^ -4-
s
3
•^v.-y-
-40-
CSU Min Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.22. The comparison of Min Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel.
140
•4v60E+00-
! | -3,006+00 -2.50E+00 -2 OOE+00 -1,50E+00 -1.00E+00 -5,00E-01 , 5 OOE-01 1 .OOE+00 1.60 =+00
o
o
a.
3
CO 1 SOEiOO
u
-300E+GO
Figure B.23. The comparison of Mean Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Turmel(Rough).
02 0.6 08
TTU SD Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.24. The comparison of SD Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel(Rough).
141
TTU Max Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.25. The comparison of Max Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel(Rough).
TTU Min Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.26. The comparison of Min Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel(Rough).
142
Figure B.27. The comparison of Mean Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Timnel
(Smooth).
14,
12
yy^ •
u
• • y^
o 0.8
u
£
3
M
in
• y^
«
(0
* y
3 r 4
(0
o
0,4
S ^
0,2
0 14
0.6 08 1 1.2
() 02 04
TTU SD Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.28. The comparison of SD Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel (Smooth).
143
SrS--,
1 3-
2:5- *. 4yy
y^
>y4
*
2-
1-5—
%»\:^*x * **
•. rw*. •
} ^ x ' \
•
<U
« 2
5 jfl ^ • ' •0.5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 35
J.
TTU Max Pressure Coefficient
Figure B.29. The comparison of Max Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel (Smooth).
Figure B.30. The comparison of Min Cp between TTU and CSU Wind Tunnel (Smooth).
144
13.04
Relative
Frequency 602
0,00
-0,8 -0 6 -0 -0 3 -0,2 0,0 02
Mean Cp Enor
Figure B.31. Logistic Distribution (l.OOe-2, 4.28 e-2) fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram
for UWO-TTU.
Relative
Frequency 0,7-
00
-4 6 -3 7 -i 7 -1 8
1
-0 9
Mean Cp Etror
00
H
09 18 27
Figure B.32. Logistic Distribution (-3.84e-2, 4.20e-2) fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram
for UWO-TTU (Quadrant 1).
145
13,6
Relative
Frequency e8
'4 -0 3 -0 2 -01 00 0 1 0,
Mean Cp Enor
Figure B.33. Logistic Distiibution (1.84e-2, 3.50e-2) fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram for
UWO-TTU (Quadrant 3).
128
Relative
Frequency BI
-0,22 -0,
SD Cp Eiror
Figure B.34. Logistic Distribution (-1.04e-3, 2.59e-2) fits to SD Cp Error Histogram for
UWO-TTU.
146
2,18
Relative
Frequency i os
Figure B.35. Logistic Distribution (-9.72-2, 0.19) fits to Max Cp Error Histogram for
UWO-TTU.
Relative
Frequency 07
18 27
Figure B.36. Logistic Distribution (-7.91e-2, 0.28) fits to Min Cp Error Histogram for
UWO-TTU.
147
8,09
Relative
Frequency 4 os
ODO
-0,8 -0 6 -0 5 -0,3 -0,2 0,0 02 D
Mean Cp Enor
for CSU-UWO.
Relative
Frequency so4
0,00 035
•0,35 J) -021 -014 -007 OO
Mean Cp Eixor
Figure B.38. Logistic Distribution (8.47e-2, 3.82e-2) fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram for
CSU-UWO (Quadrant 1).
148
96
Relative
Frequency 41
• •
0.0
.0.8 -0 6 0S 02 03
Mean Cp Enor
for CSU-UWO (Quadrant 3).
27.6
Relative
Frequency lae
-0,16 -0,13 -0,10 -0,06 -0, 0, 0 013 016
SD Cp Enor
Figure B.40. Logistic Distribution (4.I8e-3, 1.12e-2) fits to SD Cp Error Histogram for
CSU-UWO.
149
Relative
Frequency 15
•17 -13 -10 .0 7 -0 3 O'O 0!3 07 13 17

Max Cp Eiror
Figure B.41. Logistic Distiibution (-4.97e-3, 0.12) fits to Max Cp Error Histogram for
CSU-UWO.
Relative
|\
MM
0,0
-2 5 -1 9 -1 2
1
-0 6 o'o
Min Cp Enor
0,^ 12
Figure B.42. Logistic Distribution (0.013, 0.21) fits to Min Cp Error Histogram for CSU-
UWO.
19 25 31
150
Relative
Frequency le
•0,4 ^0 2 OD 02 04 07 0,9 1/
Mean Cp Enor
Figure B.43. Logisfic Distiibution (6.90e-2, 8.66e-2) fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram for
TTU-CSU.
Relative
Frequency 3,1
0,0 0 34 0,42
.0,42
Mean Cp Enor
Figure B.44. Logisfic (-0.13, 5.92e-2) Distribution fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram for
TTU-CSU (Quadrant 1).
151
Relative
Frequency 44
0 4 07
Mean Cp En 01
Figiu-e B.45. Lognorm Distiibution (0.21, 0.12) + -0.10 fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram
for TTU-CSU (Quadrant 3).
Relative
Frequency 9,7
•0,31 -0,25 •0,19 ^0 12 •Ot
SD Cp Enor
TTU-CSU.
152
;6
Relative
Frequency 13
Figiu-e B.47. Logistic Distiibution (0.15, 0.17) fits to Max Cp Error Histogram for TTU-
CSU.
Relative
Frequency os
-2 6 -2 0 -13 13 20 26 33
Min Cp Enor
Figure B.48. Logistic Distribution (6.58e-2, 0.24) fits to Min Cp Error Histogram for
TTU-CSU.
153
7,09
Relative
Frequency 3,55
Figure B.49. Logistic Distiibution (-2.08e-3, 7.22e-2) fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram
for UWO-TTU-CSU.
Relative
Frequency 52
0,0
-0,5 -0,, 0,2 03 04 05
Mean Cp Enor
Figure B.50. Logistic Distribution (7.72e-3, 5.10e-2) fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram for
UWO-TTU-CSU (Quadrant 1).
154
58
Relative
Frequency :9
00
Figure B.51. Logistic Distiibution (4.80e-3, 8.02e-2) fits to Mean Cp Error Histogram for
UWO-TTU-CSU (Quadrant 3).
Relative
Frequency 7,1
UWO-TTU-CSU.
155
1.6
Relative
Frequency OB
Max Cp Error
Figure B.53. Logistic Distiibution (l.I8e-3, 0.17) fits to Max Cp Error Histogram for
UWO-TTU-CSU.
Relative
00
•4 B -3 7 -2 7 -1 8
i
-0^9 o'o 0,'9
Min Q) Eiror
18 27
Figure B.54. Logistic Distribution (1.55e-5, 0.25) fits to Min Cp Error Histogram for
37 46
UWO-TTU-CSU.
156
, 5-1
M • y"
* . 1 ^» /
t • # ••• yy
3-
• Metfiods comparison
• ^ L i n e a r (45 Deg)
•^^^r *
JP ^ 1 2 3 4 1
. .2--
Metiiod II
Figure B.55. The comparison of mean extreme Max Cp between two methods.
2-.
6 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 ^ :
« Methods comparison
y • t * ^—Linear (45 Deg)
—-8-
« •
-10
•
• • 1?
, - ^ -44-
,.i.6„-
Metiiod II
Figure B.56. The comparison of mean extreme Min Cp between two methods.
157
5
* T' » •
4- ty* •
• ' '* **
^J^
3- ^JPv*
W^* •
* •
tjKii*
w^* ^—Linear (45 Deg)
*
jf^*
! -1 4r 1 1 2 3 4 5 1
-2-
Observed
Figure B.57. The comparison of mean extreme Max Cp by method I and Observed Max.
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 < rfr' ) 2 .
. *_^^^
* Methods comparison !
o
^—Linear (45 Deg) j
"yt
* *yC**
40-
y •
43—
Observed
Figure B.58. The comparison of mean extreme Min Cp by method I and Observed Min.
158
4-
3-
yî i
——Linear (45 Deg)
J^ 1 1 2 3 4 5 1
Figure B.59. The comparison of mean extreme Max Cp by method II and Observed Max.
-•4 -12 -10 -8 -6 SBH^ ) :
• • *•
•
odi
6-
£ ^—Linear (45 Deg)
E *
*
** V^ -8-
* • y'
4fl-
y^ ij
— i - i -
Observed
Figure B.60. The comparison of mean extreme Min Cp by method II and observed Min.
159
Relative
Frequency 22
1.B -13 -10 -0,6 -0 3 OlO 03 0,6 1.0

Max Cp Enor
Figure B.6I. Logistic Distiibution (-0.17, 0.10) fits to Method II-Method I Max Cp Error
Histogram.
Relative
Frequency 1,0
25 34 42
-17 •O'B 00
Min Cp Error
Figure B.62. Logistic Distribution (0.14, 0.35) fits to Method II-Method I Min Cp Error
Histogram.
160
Relative
Frequency
CBe[t»W«l
14 0 0 0.4 0
MJIX Cp Eiror
Figure B.63. Extieme Value Distribution (0.075, 0.1613) fits to Observed-Method 2

Max Cp Error Histogram.
.4.04 J 03 -2.CE -l-O!
Figure B.64. Weibull Distribution (14.42, 5.00) + -5.17 fits to Observed-Method 2 Min
Cp Error Histogram.
161
Relative
Frequency
fl,5 -0 00 0 5 0,
Max Cp En or
Figure B.65. Logistic Distiibution fits (2.74e-3, 3.90e-2) to Observed-Method 1 Max Cp
Error Histogram.
Relative
Frequency 33
-1,9 -15 11 -0 7 -0 4
Min Cp En or
Figure B.66. Logistic Distribution (-2.1 le-3, 7.61e-2) fits to Observed-Method 1 Min Cp
Error Histogram.
162
Co^mparlson of Peak Pressure Coefficient among two methods and Obsen/ed valu€ ODeg
08 I
V
!
1 °'
o !!
o
« * Method II Est Peak for 3 taps
3 04 • Method 1 est Peak for 3 taps
M
« CSU417 Obs Peak
s • CSU507 Obs Peak
a. XCSU516 Obs Peak
1 02
Q.
•a T J
0)
1 I 1 3 ,
1 0
s
-0 2
f
-0 4
Number(1:CSU414(UWO1310) 2:CSU507(UWO 1301) 3:CSU516(UWO 1208))
Figure B.67. Mean Extieme Pressure Coefficients by two estimation methods VS Two
standard Deviation from single largest Cp; OAOA, 3 Taps.
Comparison of Peak Pressure Coefficients among two methods and observed value 45 Deg
1.5
T
J
I
' 1
Ii
{ • •
t CSU410 Obs Peaks
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 y CS 503 Obs Peak
• )i:CSU512 Obs Peak
T T
1I « • CSU515 0bsPeak
i •1-CSU809 Obs Peak
t li
-CSU813 Obs Peak
., • m
n -1
• 1
I
«
Number<1:CSU410 2:CSU503 3:CSU 512 4:CSU615 S:CSU809 6:CSU813)
Figure B.68. Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients by two estimation methods VS Two
standard Deviationfi-omsingle largest Cp; 45AOA, 6 Taps.
163
comparison of Peak Pressure Coefficient among two methods and observed value 90 Deg
1? 1
1 - |i
•
nn I
T 1
06 i
*
04 • Rice Method Est Peaks for 3 taps
• Chris Method Est Peaks for 3 taps
CSUS01 Obs Peaks
07
X CSU706 Obs Peaks
X CSU611 Obs Peaks
n I
11 1 4 5 6 ;
-n? I
• m
-0 4
i
nfi
08
1
Number(1: CSU801 2:CSU706 3:CSU611)
standard Deviationfi-omsingle largest Cp; 90AOA, 3 Taps.
Comparison of Peak Pressure Coefficient among two methods and observed value 135 Deg
I 11
1 .
* } i
• Rice Method Est Peaks for 4 taps
CSU605 Obs Peak
XCSU711 Obs Peak
(1 1 2 3 '\ 5
XCSU109 Obs Peak
• CSU202 Obs Peak
i -0.5 T
1
I 11
J
Number(1:CSU605 2:CSU711 3;CSU109 4:CSU202)
standard Deviation from single largest Cp; 135AOA, 4 Taps.
164
C o m p a r i s o n of Peak Pressure Coefficient among two methods and Observed value 180 Deg
1.2
U 06
CSU206 Obs Peaks
xCSU1140bs Peaks
XCSU105 Obs Peaks
-0 2
-0 6
Number(1:CSU20e 2:CSU114 3:CSU105)
C o m p a r i s o n of Peak Pressure Coefficient among t w o method and observed value 225 Deg
• Rice MethodEst Peaks for 4 taps

• Chris method Est Peaks for 4 taps
CSU409 Obs Peaks
X CSU304 Obs Peaks
x C S U l 10 Obs Peaks
• CSU101 Obs Peaks
Number(1: CSU409 2: CSU304 3: CSU110 4:CSU101)
165
1 .
II
OR i '•
06 \ ^ •
!!
04 • Rice Method Est Peaks for 3 taps
CSU216 Obs Peaks
0,2 XCSU311 Obs Peaks
X CSU405 Obs Peaks
0 I T
( i 1 3 -
-0,2
11
-0 4 i!
-0,6
Numberfl: CSU216 2:CSU311 3:CSU405)
1,5
T
i. !
!
•
•
• Rice Method Est Peaks for 3 laps

• Chns Method Est Peaks for 3 taps
CSU210 Obs Peaks
(1 1 2 )
; X CSU504 Obs Peaks
XCSU511 Obs Peaks
i -0,5
i 11
I ,
ii
-1,5
Number(1: CSU210 2:CSU604 3:CSU511)
166
APPENDIX C:
GRAPHS FOR THE COMPARISON OF
PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS FOR
WIND TUNNEL MODELS AND
WERFL FULL SCALE DATA
167
360
o
Q. Q.
U 0) Q. O
Fulls caleC
Full Scale
315
-Win d Tun
•wind t unnel
^ M
270„
L, «
270
1 f n
* 59 J, «
H
t xj
B \ S
.^:
(l )
in
CM
CM
ID
CM
c^^>
\«
/K u o
! e o
<: o £• o
i L * •1 00
T- ^ g a.
ro
r '1 o ^^
^f4 o
i k ii P in
6 < : 2 O)
c .32
S VSfg
o o
> i ^ l<™'
» V;^^sfi»»
»
»|s
< ro
o
cn O) W
«
»3|
in K T3
•9 M » C
9
ro
1 - o _ - © . «!iW i ro
o
o o f - . t p i O ' ^ r o r v l - ^ o W
o o o o o o o o
S}uai3ij^303 a j n s s a J d Q S sjuapmaoQ 3jnss3Jd U!|/\| TJ
O
MS. 1 ^flSi'îfeS&jii. 1 —«
C
Q.
Q. 5 Q. 0 '^''sMSî'-
O (D {
3i ; 0
nel
e IC 03
ii i ^ 0 fiiSe)^^
c 1:3
ro 3 '*sS^ ro e Q.
0 3
o h- B " O^ O
W Tl W T3 '« c
^ c ! 3
C r
iz i u. 5 o
sj^S.
'i J£
1 1 as
- r O
w
'^
ro
gieo fAttac
t
» 4 i to
w 1^ re
Q.
E
c < o
^ a O
"o
OI O O
c c
Ê < < ID
I 3
K V
1^ r
§ rqfe»
i a '^^ lj X^ g o
H
s ^ ^ «
9 r^^^f^CS^
'I tB g
u
' s" ^^ <a«r^W
I ^^ 'I
2
i « ^€fi.
1 ?^fe 6
O O C O M - t N O C S I ' S - t O C O T - CM m M- in (O in CN in m o m
O O O O O O O O
•7 M- cn' CNI •^ o d
s)U3p!J4303 3jnss3Jcl ue3|/\| S)U3j3LM303 3JnSS3Jd XB|/\|
168
^ o
Q. ID < U.
O Q. ro
O Q.
m O ()
'^ «s «; in 0)
c ^ 1^ * (U
t= ro CO !^K c
c ro
3 o w 3 o
"i^
indt
uiiS
ftK , «
1 -
O
r- o?
r^ k i» u
c
(f)
^—
"l^f
Cvl
5 u_ CNI
1 !L " l 5 u_
m "1 B
X
< • X
i •
t
e
-
m
CM
CM
CSI
CM
ifA
1
« / 4«
o •»
u
re
oo
o
o
< o
O
L * ' 00 m o ^^
Q.
k c .,- ro
r '(
%lF l
135
^
a ^ «•
« H
^^ ro
o o
S A, ft*
o O) CO
(j>
» J* 4J^.J
'ÎKllfe'*' . '
It o ^ ^^'^bS-'*^ X
X
»] I ^ î ^ i ?>«<
L. m lO T3
} • *
'^ aX c
ro
K a y^^Sa^^^
1 ^ ^ ^'^SfcSP flj
Jg^gjo 1 ro
o
c n c o r ^ C D i p - ^ r o f s i T - CO
o
o o o o d o o o c 6 "53
s i u a p y ^ a o Q a j n s s a J d u!|/\| •o
siuapjiâoQ ajnssajd QC
1
o
o
a. ^ m j CO
O Q. K«
-TT.

'^l M
^ffib
(O
.Q
c ro Q.
3 o R
O
T3
•5i =
u- c
o
in>» •^ w
'u.
leo f AttacI
<• X ro
7 * Q.
E
O o
t: .< O
CM
i
I
"O)
c
6
I < 3
I
Sj^^M-W
o Js"
i C!>
I
{
\ ^ ILM
^#f 8< m
n
«
1; ^^W
] — ^ ^ 1—= 1
T- in o in Tj- in
o o 1
s)ua!otM303 ajnssaJd XB|/\I

s;u3!3!ij3O0 ajnssaJd uea^
169
o O
- <D
Q. _ ro CO
L^^m]#n Q.
O 0) O 
r^ . . " I t
if ? w CM
\ \ M
\»
» <•
« .c
<3
in in u r Kl JC CO
>\* CM CM » <> u o
Atta
CM •4
CO
«
U
D
m
!V(^
Tit to Q
o
o
»s^ 0) Q.
^M f ? in
: CO
O) ro
cv c
• ©»
<t -- t
aS« <
O
O & ro
Swîsssjw r o> CD
L l l IS." 1
IK^«* • ^ w o
«u < , ^ k T SB ^ X CO
« s
l^4.L i
s a
in
•<1-
m
ei
H
•"I-
•^ W
»» TJ
c
c j i o o i ^ c D i n T j - c o c M i - o
K^" ro
i2
ro
c3 1- CM CO •^ in CD r^ 00 o
o o o o o o o o o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CO
s i u a p j j j a o o ajnssaJd a s siuapjjâoQ ajnssaJd U!|/\| "oJ
•a
o o
!«• CO
Full Scale Cp
c
-Wind Tunnel
« ^ ^ gift J.
m
7P CO
Si
K V
4 o a.
- 1^ O
CM
X
•1
Angle Of Attack
225
u o
re m
'L-
ro
<
180
14- E
o
2 < o O
O)
» m CO
c
e» CO
d
V'
< 3
B ^ Jt^^.
^Wtf
: 1 g _ m
X T gj '»f *L»
1 ^•••'« 1^ r —1
C O ' ^ C M O C M ' ^ C D O O T - C M - ' t C D c o i n c M i n - < - i n o i n

CM T- d CD
odd d d d d ' -r^ ^ ^
s;ua!3!jjao3 ajnssaJd xB|y\|
s i u a p i j j a o o ajnssaJd uea|/\|
170
o
# » • *
Q.
?" O CD
' Si i
ro
o 13-
V « x fli
o
V
*.. ^
"
= c
X *
c\
0
S 1
if ^
M t H :
- c\ o o
m (\ / B S re
jgL »
C
<
o
o
o
^^^t«(, " 0) Q.
uS™^ ** ' O) ro
c
> <
F#
• ^
O ro
0 o
CO
'"y
X
_ m "x
TJ
c
ro
tT* K
ro
cD T- CNj CO -^ in CO 1 ^ OO o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CO
siuapjjâoo ajnssaJd QS s}ua!3!jâoo ajnssaJd UJIAJ •53
TJ
o O
r"<0----
K
-fîi^m c^
Full Scale Cp
CO
-Wind Tunnel
^»iS?,
* 1
fen (1>
«*s^î cor CD
» « X
.Q
d, Q.
" 1 1 O
CM
Q.
O 2^ ^
m .ic c
ni £ o
0) c CM o
H <• o ro ^ CM re
eo
'i—
l»p a
re o H J ; C ro
CO -o
< ^ c:i < Q.
E
eof
.....1.8
•S P.
if 3 o
O
M ' "Tl 2*
c » •> cJ
^-"^^ f^ < m '^ 3 i_
3
o E O! OJ
O?
CD
•"^rs
X «
Kft^
* fiSSs»'**» ifi
«i«^«^ • *
e J
Ci .^
Kj
o
i n c o i n c M i n t - i n o i n
in tn in
CO CM •<- d CD
d d
siuajojiidoo ajnssaJd ueaiAj stuajojjâoo ajnssaJd XB|/\|
171
O
- CD
Q. CO
S ^ ^ ^ Q. _
o CD ^ # ^ ^ O aJ
CD ** S in C
ro
o
3
1-
-1 r ro ,3
10 1? o 1-
CO TI » CO T3
u * ;
o V".
Full
Win
o \ & "- : C
1^
- r^
«9 •
CN
CM
A IS if §
"A ffl w g
Jc m m CM
R
<• » CN - CM « o O
» V 3 CM CM« / *
!*« re 00
< O
< ^
180
OO
is. * m - ^ o
1 Ji Q.
%^ ; '" in OI ro
k^J^t^ ! : CO - CO ^ c
<C - - WIK *
T—
<
^»<«!&,»
s
" », ^ ' ^ l ^ s«
p? o
CD o
CD iSi R
5
iJ
ro
o
CO
''•'' ^ SHE.^.^'' « ;
» in s
» 2"
» J^?"! JS^'' " T3
J||gx c
ro
1^ 03 in •<«• CO CM T o
i ^
CM CO CD ro
o c3 cD C3 C3 CD C3 o
CO
s)ua!3!jâo3 ajnssaJd QS siuajojjjaoo ajnssaJd U!|/\]
TJ
o O
— (O
^n CO a. c:
Sea leC
ne
CD
in
Jgv T—
c3
^co 0)
H
T3 a.
9 —
3
C O
r
Li-
c
tri X
u u o
» '• re
csT » X re ro
/ af!
< < Q.
o
E
^ * o O o
^» O
^ % 'x O) m
c c
c3hg«pi < d
< CD
I—
V 4 ^W
3
o &'' gj
2*s« ^ ^ ^ ^ LL
^_SS^&"S!
SOT^ X^
g%in
<•
o ^ »
W? i
w ••
in
d d
sûapiJâoQ ajnssaJd UBaiyy s}ua!3!Jjao3 ajnssaJd XBJAI
172
o
^»» a,
Tun nel
O
cale
-jfer «
^ (J) TJ
o — C
- 1^ 3
CM
9 » li_ §
0
1 % ^
ms / « o
CN u
CiM|/ re oo
x^ (a
o
ô g^
Q.
O) ro
7^ »
SB
O
CD
^?<* ™"R
ro
o
r^^^B^^^n
>"JJ^ *
X
CO
"5
•5 4,» * U-
T3
. C
ro
^
ro
T- C5 •<- CM CO Tl" m CD o
1 1 1 1 1 1
CO
s}ua!3!J|ao3 ajnssaJd U!|/\| "53
s}uai3iiiaoo aj nssajd a s T3
o o O
C0
Q. _
»» 7 * ^ ^ ( ^ ^ - ?s
»»" 1
c
II Scale C
nd Tunne
* K
i ub CD
3 CD
'J »
c0 aW".
"t, ^VB
CO
as » X * ft
ca Q.
- r>
O
J |l2
f ? CL < >
t^
\
I
H P" O
ni
CD
= \ s in it. d
- cI T R O u i^ C OJ o o
re ro 3 OJ re w
/ « y 1- / ^ !
s C
ro
FullS
f "^
eof A
-Wind
< a.
o
E
o
o O
H »
b O) W i^ g) CD
^ 4 < »
r C
** c d
l#* < CD
3
CD V* P« o
CD
03
s *
1 \
I0 * X » _ i^
' a- JLJ% X a « •<*•
^fl^' ^ ^
1J
1 (3 — —s 1 " i " "I

O O C D ' ^ C M O C M - ' t C D o q - r ^ C M •<a- i n CO i n CM i n T- in o IO
d d d o dI o dI d •<-I CO CM ^ o o1
I I
sûapijjaoo ajnssaJd UBa|/\| s)ua!3!iiaoo ajnss'3Jd xeiAi
173
o o
k^^^ 9 '< 1
CD
a. _ CO
i
« « O 13
m
i
c ro
o
,3
H CO
^^m M
R - « i - '^
W
^ Fu
T3
c o o
\ ^ X
» . 1
—•—Wi
27
3 1 I--
9
B J X
CM »
* s
r >
K Of B/^» -, »
225
S
m .^ m
»
- CM U
CM a >
o
tta
o <
)
* As C
(J « •^
1 1 ^ — m 1 o Q, ^
<
gle
CL
J?
B* >* ! in in &%^N? ' O CD Q.
e "3
<) CO - CO
tf c ro
5 i««^ » ro 3 < 1-
1h ^ ^ O 1-
x*« xS'S s: o o W T3
<: o> CD "^^^^^ ''» = C
ro
is" i if t o
CO
9
m
i^'^ !?
s - i^S
rT% " « s <>
iJFS^^lhfr Jk^f » s
1 (Ppirf?! o
^^r * ' ro
i n ' ^ i n c o i n c M i n T — m o o i n T - m c M i n c o m
^. d ^. d '^. d ^. d °. d ' T- ' C M ' CO
ro
o
o o o o o I 1 1 1
CO
s;ua!3!J4aoo ajnssaJd QS s;ua!3|j4ao3 ajnssaJd uj|/\|
T3
o O
o
LI .
J - . —
c) CL _ C^
O CD CD
CD
fe
If
) Si i « 1 ^ ^ ^
a B t*'?St'8&2 i a
«
c1 ro p 2 1 »»»f^f^ c^ CD
o 1-
^ s^*^ W TJ
5
««* '^ ^ J X2
7.0.
^ c
« ^ • Q.
- r- 3 =5
c i7 s
li- > Q. _ x^
o< o
Tunne
cale C
r ^
u' i
xf^ " \xie
Attack
- c1 4 s O û o
c 1 / ,» re -^ .S2
/«8! 1 |: ro
jj^Ks < = c d <4-
Q.
E
^^^riX <4-
o if t o
0) o o
O
0)
1^ ^^ •) K O K, id Ul
c c d
< • m CO < CD
^ ' i t_
3
_ CJ L iiwmz _ cij OJ
a*B W^^g^ CJ|
If ) X t
-jj^' fl^fi^
d
JM •>; •<«
5^^»
\W s
*-
1
o q c O - ^ C M O C M - ^ t C D O C l T - i n c o i n c#»*M i n^- » - i n o i n
d d d d d d d d
I I I I
' CO CM T- o o
1
s i u a n j j j a o o ajnssaJd U6a|/\| sjuajsijâoo ajnssajd x6|/\]
174
#1
g ^^(tpf K
^f*%»i8«
""]
i
\ » fr K »
>
s >vK
" »*Gi s O \^ s R \
1^ > «" " » \
M CM
N /
« 1
f
m
CM u
(^ / re
oo
< o
in
m o g
Q.
O Q) a.
CD cc ^ ^' V 19 Q.
c ro
3 - CO* O (D
ro C <
o — • î&ati <D
CO a e "S**
^ ^ 1 ro c3
^= c •%( o 1- i2
IIS
o ro
U- § a ^«t." 3
T3
o
CO
" R
W^ X
» U- ^
o ^ânar •<
ajlS^ »
« <• •a
c
^^^ ro
(O in wo- L . iJ
d d ro
d o
CO
sûapijjaoo ajnssaJd a s "oJ
s ^ u a p j j j a o o ajnssaJd u IIAI TJ
o O
p...<i{>
c3 Q. » '
r "^^^s^
i^l^^rfx
?5
CD
,
nne
leC
* * u3
I4J CD
i » « c?
r3 ro 3 X CD
%^ o H x" X
S2
ix^ CO T3 ^\ a.
- ^f
Full
- r- c ^
O
c Q. _ «\
a* O 05 \
u3 I CD i \ s ub .if
u ro = - CSJ O o
cJ/ •• <• o 1- li .w
e re
c CO -o 1 " ro
Full
Win
Q.
o ^ i o o
E
o
% V O
S J
O) B i\
c * % cp S
/x^Tt- <
O
< CD
'â • i_
1 x» 3
c IPL CSJ CT
» | r r cp
» J^^^ F î
B '^
u3 A 14 1 lij
^1- r ^
p a-
*
" I •»• 1 • " " 1 1 1
A~^-
- O O C D ' ^ C N O C M - ^ C D O C S T T t i n c o i n c M i n t - i n o i n
d d d d I
d Io dI oI CO CM •<- d C3
siuapiiiaoQ ajnssaJd ueajAi s;ua!3!jjaoo ajnssaJd XBJAI
175
o
UJ
CO o
'n^BgffiS 1 u.
FuliS aleC
t*:
N ^ CD
»^^^^^ iin a.
3 H IRS i O CD
j rK
y ^' ^
•Wind Tunn
^
o h_ I ' J
FuliS cale
X
- %.
" c
270
1=
» x <
N*'
a 8
o 1
CM 1
<
225
X J X
1°
U3 «
s I s
CN • X <>
J^
o o
CM a / M re
t y
0
JC tn CO
ii oo
^ rf
tta
CQ U3
/X
"'^ - smSi ! >^
<^K^\.
:O
.?; » <i: j 0) QL
135
H»S*''5wi, >„
(B H <5 A^K.Vft "& : cn ro
„ , "^ \
»SJ»
BJ
i c
• ^
i<
X '
L-T* Sua
•iji
<C
o
CD
. CD
o
\ ? ^ S l i »»i"
SMA tep^f"%"
ff^W * 4
*i * ».
•s o 1*
e
i I
:
ro
s CJ
» 1 *; « ^ n ^
CO
in â « "3
X ^ 1 ^ -a- U-
« 1 ^M^^
C""t'»
CD i n •<* CO CM ,- o _ T^ » 1 1
ro
o o o o o o O T - I c M 1c o -1 ^ j -1 i n c1 o i 1~ - o1 o 1 o
CO
stuajsjjâoo ajnssaj d a s s;ua!3!jjaoo ajnssajd U!|/\] "53
TJ
o o
S'i^Sa'^ »
R a ^\^
"x"^
9^^^^,x
^
c
4 ^^^S iri; CD
CD
» I^W'^fl
«a « iSSp CO^
CD
X & ' \ .Q
\ » 1
J.
CN^ o
Q.
1/ ''.
< isi. a. c
o o
«
- CNt o
CN( re _m
re 'i—
4i 1 ts ro
< tl c^< Q.
E
o o
Q.
O
o a3 CD
< ^ro c d
o 1
3 1\ ^
K s < CD
I—
CO -o w CD;
»
8;
Ô; 3
CT
—
3 '
g
^ 1
•
B
^^J^^° ' - ^
» *J
4
ca£
i n c o i n c M L n t - i n o i n
CO CM -^ d CD
S)uai3!jjiaoo ajnssaJd ueajAj siua!3!jjaoo ajnssaJd XB|/\|
176
O
» * - CO
to
Q.
r^.
cale C
o
Tunne
m
PS'
00
' , \ I S S ^ S It " 3:
CO
W'Sr Isa _
315
CO « «
TJ
I }\ K
Ful
3 > ? CM
X; <
a
0
a « / ft" ^ - K W" ' ô
/
« CM
o
225
M i •
V. IK
* R
\^
' ^
225
c?
ttack
»(P t « 1 O
O
\ Vx^ **
180
s CM
11 *- S m
I*.
c o » HK
K t 1 < CM
oo Q.
\i / Jt.
d bJli,x ^ R 0
c ro
- ' .^
1 Q. 0)
Abe ^'^ £ m l&f^^^ ^^» 0 CD D)
I-
< CO C C
ale
! Bo
i <
1 " ^.»:ZI
C « ^ k o
^^l^x 0
U)
H ro
o
J a> ^^w*»» TJ
CO
Full
-Win
X
1 >^^
ym
1
X ' in JE*"
'^K^%
B
Tl
^^K^« M <•
w t ".
•^K A X ro
» K S8E£.
- o
TwiBsiû '1
„ l " ^ ^ a ^ B s ^ s X..
ro
-* li 3 CO in oJ in t - ir ) O o m T - m c M m c o m o
c
• ^
CO
d ''c '.3 d fN
O
c> "^
o
o
c
> d
I I
1- '
I
CM
I
' CO
"oJ
> T3
sl u a p y j a o Q 3JnSS3JcJ QC t sjuapyâoo sjnssajd U!|/\| O
^ 0 c
CD
m CD
n
0 CD
c ^ CD
CD c f "^ «1 .a
m 3 \ c:
U)
0 1- '/i CL
O
Wind
tii 0
c
Ful
Ts rvj
o
(0
V *
ro
of Attack
M 0 - CN QL
u CN
re
/x»
E
o
O
to S a jy
h
0
00
01
o
e
O) d
! ^^ 10
« jwx" * r h CO i < CD
I—
3
CT
^^L. r.
^ I^^K 03
^•^psf »** _ m
r" »j
in cT m c M m i - m o u 3 T-
CO CM 1- 0 c3 '
sfuapyjaoo sjnssajd UBa|/\| sûajoy^soo ajnssaJd xe|/\|
177
o
C3 i. I s i
*i*«Mr"
r to
CO o
C)
(-...CD
-->i
CD
" x'^^Bl ^ CO
CD in j
ro 3
« m
o 1- CO
,' I
FullS
a CO . ' « ! / • • "• X
Wind
= 1 / »"; ^ x i '
270
K i
a s / ' X , IS "
1 -
o
r-~ J^' /* 1
e
»1 / t : a# CM
"*•NJ: Lr : 00
> o
225
s <• B X t *=
J( m
c CM ^ oo
o
c^ CM
"li >* ro o
« <
l« «
« tt CM
180
'^ B m -
o
00
r * iw*" 8
<
1-
CM
c « « Q.
s )s a p^~" Q.
0
(U
ro
I-
H ^*
i
c£ )- in f ) CD D)
1 «75
* M _i«
CO )^^'t'^'
^ff^ ft (U
ro
e
c=
3
c
<
s » XI .sSî*?' / ma o ro
IIS
s «::^6Ei5«* / B
T3 o
« _ o - ^^^81"" CO
3
Li- §
«
B ^SS^°^MLL
«B « ^
in
Tj- »£J» o
TJ
" ^rmLs*
J
X
c
ro
1 «.>^
s x » 13^^n><^ „ l ^ ^ a » x % l ! X ro
- o o
CD in •* CO CN
'•- T- cJ O L O T - i D O j m c o i r M- CO
o o o o o c> • I I I
•55
T3
siuajoyjaoQ ajnssaJd a s 5)U3py4303 ajnssajd ujiAi O
o
C
o o CD
s CD
O a «
CD
c ir CL -•^
c K
CD
m z ' c
f ^^^^ O CD B
o
U)
H
K
CU c: Puj Q.
-n ro r c?
^z c o =
H o
3 a 0)
f
T3
U- C
CJ c
3 o
ir
»KN
IB
u_ Y CM
CO
« <• - o1
t3
^ 'l_
Cv 1 ici ^ ro
>'" re X <• -
«
CNl
rti
T ;
<§ Q.
3&'*^ i°
f < K
c o
o o O
j^^J» ^^l - § 'S
J OJ
u c OI O
- c < « 9>
»^ • ^ <
1
•s
X
C ^$ r
o 0.
K
^".^^pys*
1" i ^^«^^'
ir
= B ^
1^ "* ft
1 " ri
i - C O C D ' 5 t C N J O C M M ; C C > o q m Tr m c o i n c M m - j - m c 3 m
d o d o d d d d •>j- CO CM •!- o cp
I I I I
sjuajomaoo ajnssaJd ue3|/\| s}U3ioyi303 ajnssaJd xe|/\|
178
^m
J . "
- CD
Q. -_ CO o
p . . CO- •
O CD X)
^ »« s ' l ^ K i K i CO 'i'f^^ .,
•D , "^ M 1 *
c « JS^VSSSWA^.
Si
ro
c
3 s
X
s » ^
S N m K^^H"'* ' • '
o h- ^ ^ CO in X
FullS
*if¥v" >
-Wind
ff « CO
H
o g
CM
Si'
ft
^ CMA,
H
X <•
/ « i m Sôt»
-i CM CD
N I yA 1 3 CN
o
ttack
/All - CM
«(»' j CN «
^ **1 >i
180 ft » *
V/l
keo, 1
DO
O
00
VR'i .""^ » < o
11) •
a«s5'8i»»
X «
X » " o CM
CM
1? in Q.
* 3fc « 1
? CO
sSfe®" « « CL
xs^ C T- ;>^Df ro
*i«*
< c
9 ^"i o
•^ 1 ^ 2
3i
T3
^ <
3
e
.. jfi J H .2
CD ro
%1 o
CO
in if i
'
'
• *
-m' X^K X
i
< o
ro
ininî-incouncMir :> T- ) o
u- K y. 5
ro
^—' i l-^-.-U if- 1 , _j
d ^. d '^. d <^. d :3 ^ d c>
O T - I c N i j c o1 T j 1- i D1 c D1 r ^ o
o o o c C
> 1 CO
sûapijâoo sjnss;WdQS "53
1
s}ua!3!J4aoo ajnssaJd UJIAI TD
o
rt r^-^^
_.,„„ o
.-.--.-.. ••-•""•"•
c— -- 1 OJ
CO!
« ^ |4 CL _
;; CD
I
^ 1 O
0.
CI)
I
1
1 ini
CD
Till
cal
3 «»^ CO CD
"( '5 ii' .Q
\
* ly
<^•F» f'
CO
^
Î
c
1
I"
o!
Q.
O
1
>*^ if < - ^
y^ \
1 3 i'^X i_
\ X
iri ^ o
w
I u
22
- 5M
nglleof Attac
ft i
<M re ro
x^ C / a K
Q.
eD »=% *« < Bjfi/
E
3.5.. 1.8i0
fw« o
'm * o O
CL 0) o
CM
^wT ^ O CD O) B
- J K ^ »
^ i c d
^ ro
O
3
1- < »'%
B % ^ ^ ^ -
-i < (U
«
FullS
I—
i& '
Wind
« E
ft 9
D o' 3
CT
D \ ° c^
IK '
°?
» .•
;• a
"^ ^BH ^ J
in
•^1
^' X s L X
'ft a • *
e S Kî
'—>?
"1 1 1 1 M
C 0 C M T - O T - C M C 0 - * U 3 C D h - ; 0 q l O c o i o c N j L O T - t o o i n
d do d d d d d d d d CO Csi -r^ o o
1
I I I g I I I I
stuapjjjaoo ajnssaJd uea|/\| s}uaj3!jjaoo ajnssaJd XEJAI
179
O
CD
CO Wt^K 1 f
1
fi j j ^ K ' m m ^»g8xx j
iftbS*''Sf®^ * T—
CO CO «» J
X /
<8f r o B«
^
!
'«" ,; » o ^"» s * "
e
1^ r^ j
CM CM X
B
% X A
X » " • / ; =
m
i^
225
CM u CM
a ! » (J CM re o
»«x 3 /R » oo,
X K R V.R \
<C , , 0" o
«f^™ Si CN
1
1 i>
5g m
1
s
o
0)
o
o
m
<^!il
Q. _ i? ^ i J) „ 13. ra Q.
leC
O 0^ 1: '^ c ro
nne
CD h «t i^ <
ro 3 M ro 3
CJ f - i!«
W »» o
H
IIS
W -o o
=
^
c
'3
CD -K 3
T3
ro
o
Li. >
u. § CO
•^1 m ^ B
» o • *
<»
TJ
c
Pa K ro
i f ^
CO h~ CD U3 •^ CO CM .,_ o CM CM CD OO ro
o
O o o o O o O o CO
s)ua!3!jâo3 ajnssaJd a s s ^ u a p j j j a o o a j n s s a J d UJIAI "oJ

T3
O
o o
CD
CO
CD
CD
lO^
^^^ m
^—
"co CO CD
X\ ' "«
o o O
- r^ *• " S f
CM s CM o
B«i
m yM in^ o
- CM CNO
CM / i X re cMre ro
/4« CL
<
g
Com
-^m" o
(^
Q. Si. 0) CO
"y*** C) CD U) in? • ^ —
unn
c ?^ O
ale
< CD
o \- 3
C/J T3 CT
^*B ^3 C o
CD ii-
a ^ ^
«^K
Li- §
x^-S.^
1^
6
ft»gi£" in
« o
B jff^^^
in m c\i
d d
s}ua!3!J4ao3 a j n s s a J d UBa|/\] sûajojjâoo ajnssaJd a S
180
o
j ; ; : ^ - CD
Vt CO
Bt^
o
'I
m
- CO
x« J ^ « r ^ CO
^^ f in
S X
^ o
CO
» R
X »o^
« *\ CM
o 1 *» R "
K - r^ •< s'
X \ J CM
«
(> m
a oB
CM /# "^L o
a ! »
(5 in CL _ ^ CO,
««« ^ - CM
/ O CD o m
1? «\bP \ <c o CM
re
%r'lM >• oo /« « CD i
t: o
<) CO ^ ^ J f i ro p < o
c) » m
Q. ^ ^ ^ o
"5 >^? 1 n ^ c
Q.
ro
oCD m 0)
AngI
L.
<! CO ^^« * if ^
ro
o H
C
3
ft
I m"*"'-
(0 k Jfc X <>
TJ
C ^ o ro
:^
3 CD
lrt» o
U- ? CO
]« in
mtft^^M^ " ;»„««
"5
a <• Tl- 'Ijrp'ii x» K U-
TJ
^ « & | "¥"'•> c
X ^ ro
^^1 1 'T»LKl"?!SS8sa*'%,s '^J! ?
^
ro
oo r^ CO i n Tf CO CM T - O C N T j - C D O O O C M ' ^ C D o
d d d d d d d d I I I I CO
s)ua!3!jâoo ajnssajd a s s}ua!3!Jâoo ajnssaJd um "oJ

TJ
O
i"""""""""""^ 1—-CD-
CO B " ^ ' *
c
U3s o
o
SICM
re ro
xx/ Q.
I '"SBJWD
< E
<4-
o
o O O
! x s a s ^ ^ S ? fiiS » « J
Q. _a)
! « $r%ffi J^ *
uCD CD ra
- tl0 1 W St « C
c3
c O
ir i«X
® ifS ® B
OT
O
< CD
1- i_
'j**^ffi^ CO TI 3
CT
Full
Win
i ii9jw^
t
: !
X 4
Bi ' ^ : ^ ^ J B <•
fr
o'K \ ^
in in in CM in •* in CO i n CM in
d d CM CO CM -r^
s)ua!3!jjao3 ajnssaJd uea|/\| s}ua|3!jâoo ajnssaJd x6|/\]
181
o
m tK» X
CO ff
vS
few » «
\ i
O
- r-~
CM
IÂ H f9
o/«1 »
in
CM
V 1 " ^0 o
00,
tta
CM
' * R M o"
CN
oVf i < CO
*•- o
CQ 0 m
S * n 0) Q.
ro
il^ ^ Oil-
tD ^ <
H
CD 3
^ ^ j ^ 0 H
j^^ffi « ''
« ^ ro
Ab^^R o
'=
3 «c CO
U- S
- ^ i ? "
« <• T3
c
^ ^ ? >* ro
dP's'rf'
ro
c D c o r ^ c D i n - ^ c o c M i - o
c3 CM •* CD oo 0 o
I I I I
• ^ CO
d d d d d d d d d "oi
s)ua!3!J4ao3 ajnssaJd aS sûajdjâoo ajnssaJd U!|/\| T3
O
o o
»«««-r---<f> 'i
----- g^- -.-.-.-.- .....--.-, ........—— ^•—•'•••':
Q.
i > ^ M
S?X ^ M ^
^
CD
ggajgj ft O 0j s
X
In
c ^ ^ f<m55»-
cn \ CD
i^ c X Sk B
W^co CD
<^ ^^%<k ro :5 ' \ .Q
o h **
FuliS
a s
c•3 \ *" 1? ! ;
3
\ O
Q.
- t • ^
* X ' » CM
cM / )tfi B ft ;
*5„
c
* 1 ift .iC o
13 • - CM 0 .tf)
- 1 vj
X 1
(J <, < W
CM
. re » 'e // « re ro
cM v^y^ a
:C C
AngIleof A
Q.
«X \ « ;< „ ' »v »/4i 0 E
(»^ 1 ^ »" - 00 o
X
o \ ^ O
CL _a) 1 '^^feks o
"53 ra
«B ^ m
w o
i|S* ;#«
O
unn
c
ale
 \
I
- f« m'^
X o •JPS!^
^tf f ^
r——
^^..M^
HH
' 1
T t CM O CM
'
•^ CO CO CM '
Tl- CD oo
•M in T- in o in
T-^ O d1
d d d d d o
s;ua!3!j|ao3 ajnssaJd XE lAI
stuapjjâoo ajnssaJd ueajAi
182
, _,,, _^,^.. _ _ _ ^ O
^t»
J «4^ CO
1 ^^fl*
1 ^ KS
in
! « CO
« > »S)
^ * ^
. ^ o
j
i « h J^ r--
CM
^
J
«si'\^H,
225
CO
o
CO,
T I in
1 " 5•
( o
C CO
*'- - oo o
r: J .,- CQ m
11 a.
Q.
»*» Pm ro
O <D • CO
Si i fr^^^
*<iC ^
ro 3
o 1-
^ o
~ CD
ro
= c o
CO
if f B^^J "3
in U-
« u TI
c
ro
ft 604ft ^ S
^ r^ 1 ' ""^^ 1 1—1
ro
in CM in •!- m o o
CM -r^ d
CO
"oJ
s;ua!3!jjaoo ajnssaJd a S T3
O
o
1 C£
c ^;:^^"^
^« ^ , i o'%S( »
fT*"™
" / „ ^sr-'^s
'i? j»xia%
C
CD
CD
u %,
C' X ei ^ ^^^ CO CD
JD
: s
c
//% H
O O
Q.
- 1^
CN »% 0 *" . • x o I 1^
CM
y « c
: .ii X in o
- CM u
: (J
: re i1 a» CM
re ro
! C < Q.
: ^ ^ B
«^ X
1
x ^ ^ •
1
^ i ^3™'% X
R < X 1 SI R«r
ft
A ^' ^ ^ S 5 « r——1
X HHr
~c?
o i n T - i n c M i n c o i n - ^ i n CM 1- m in
d ' - ' CM • CO ' -I- d d
I I I ' '
s}ua!3!Jjaoo ajnssaJd uBa|/\| siuajsjjâoo ajnssaJd xeiAj
183
o
- CD
lje^«S®«»»j a CO
J „«
1%4 r"~x :
T
315
t>B? B
^ ^ ^ I'l i * \\
K / ^^mA«!
ir^S^^kvi *""
; ^ l1» o
iJK^gijSr^ R
\
" •? , > - 1^ '* B
» • « CM
B*' **«
X
\
« !^ i
CN|
\ "^
"1
1 j CM /'^ CD
e ! 0
t ' 1» « \
f i "N 1 U
X K
/» L
1
No J O IJ
O
»» » B
* X < re
/ ^»» \
180
a CM
c » »» K
\ m
^« •>- DQ
ff«i»v< 5x « o
a jf « SI in
Q. 1P m /a^mL X
Q.
O "oJ Q. ro
>*• c
< " CO
ra
leC
I-
nne
Si i c
ro 3 B
' <
o H I^Sjjj* ro 3
W T3 4C o ^ o
H ro
IIS
CD W*x _
^ c a T3 o
!Z CO
U- > 3
4
m ^*x
^ 1
X
U-
3
• *
!! <• VJA**
4 T3
o c
ro
™ w ^ 1 1 l_l
««
iSf«2._ 1- 1 ro
oo i~^ CD in •<a- c0 CM T- O o
CM CO Tf m CO oo CD
CO
d d d d d cD d d
siuajojjjaoo ajn s s a J d s;uaj3!jjaoo ajnssaJd UJIAI "53
as T3
o
~ _° ix>-«j^ r
CD
' ^ CD
un? ^"M
p â^»^xx %
" *co ^^S'^lis*^
; an
.a
s = Y 1^. a.
O y '»%"
• a »**;
O
- r^ gj
*• i
CM
a / • c
in s ^ -if o
- CM 
" «i
jg 1 » R H
B^B ^ ^
c» lO T- ir^ CM U ->
d1 ' •!-1 csi
1
s}ua!3|j:(aoo ajns sajd uea|/\| s)ua!3!jjao3 ajnssaJd xe|/\|
184
O O
CD-
. 1 ^-m
r ^ CO
•r"«
CO fC%i» ICfll [•••
1 i'i"»^s^^'"y 1 ft
in in ^^«'» K
B >x
CO CO ^^BO?^ K X
"x 1 »
J X
«r"«f^ !
4 »» o 1» a
- r^ X »
X
CM
•
X \ y LO m
J CN o o
re CO,
ti
t o < •t
m
^ 1 l>
5~ QQ O o
m
]J _a> Q.
CL - CD. ra
5 ? i n
c
ro
5 CO o CD
03 1
^3 a i
M ' i. 1- CD c <
CO OT 3
O 1- O H
co -,D o C/J T3 ro
z CD
^ ! :^ c o
if ;> ^^9
3
Li. 3
CO
B '^^m
^ "3
X i > S X^VM
•* s X <• T3
s C
i ro
-l--ft-
r" 1—' \—™>Î - o
ro
• ^ C \ | - < - 0 C 3 C D - c
» / BJL'^^^
M'^Ms^ *
j?
CD
c^^^^^P j? CD
1 m^^^
i CO
s
l"co CD
.Q
" ^J o o
- r-~ O
£3.
f fr» - CM
r^ • » .
H CM
1 Rf"
X X a» X X C
m
225
fl.
Of Attack
- CM u o
1 4 » CM I a a re CO
'i—
ro
a.
80
o
\- oo
E
o
Q.
jggâÂ
»Efa
*°'~
» 0) W pS '^ O O
O a\
ft
i
Q. 1^'^^° i n la
ra oo
S «« K
ra o a ) 1 "
c c ^ ^ % ) S
- CO c d
Ful ISc ale
i £^1, V S
s
< OT
c
~ i K#^
•r-
s 1
4
< CD
O
; î* « _ o U) \- 3
i T, =^£^M_ o CT
C ^ ^ g ^ O)
_\A/ir
j^^^x CD
1 ^3
<X 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ '
§ 5 ^£^^^ "
X <
1
y^ a <
e
Wp
I t "»'l' ""»'"'• 1 i
m T- in o in 1- m in in in in
T-: d d
1
' -r^
1
d d
stuapjjâoo ajnssaJd XB|AI s}uaj3!jâoo ajnssaJd xe|y\j
185
r CD
CO
sj/w'^^w p-CD-
.s":-|
X
X £SJ^^^ in
« ^ f ^ *
$^v CO in
'in,
1
. l/» /
«%»" o
CO
1 «
' *
i CM
o »!:"'" " c i
- r^
X
X ^
? \ CM
.DP""
1 ' „ " ^^
225
K
" ^ i "
B m
* \ « -
m
CM
J ^
o
CM
\" *
1EL« »
« X
re o'
<«> COo / "' CM
*3 T - o " < ^
CQ - oo y'^ O
in
Q. SD.
i
o •o • 31 m CL ro
Z t) ra
CD
_ *T
Z CO
-^ m^ » c. c
cale
leC
3
ro ^ « X i^«< a
<
o 1— ^M
CO -a o
^ ^^NR^
V^vv^îr^ * ' A ^ ct (0 ro
= CD o o o
u- ;> a =1
e ^
m
CD
B
W?'"
o ^ K ^ ^ ^ '^
CO
U-
"03
TI
o
CO
a
« • • *
TJ
B
ro
^MI ""
CD in CO CM 1^^ »* 1
.,.
ro
o
d d d d d m CD CO
sjua!3!J4aoo ajnssaJd aS "oJ
s}ua!3!jjaoo ajnssaJd u[|/\| T3
O
o
a
^ CD
CD
mf
f-i™ CD
XJ
-
o
r-~
Vl Q.
O
CM > •^ ^
18
c
i^jfn o
u CO
^f^« re ro
h& ts CL
< E
o o
O
« ^ J
n 0) o CD
» C) ra
w CD
d
nd Tunn
c
II Scale
a <
3
CT
3
K jt^K
U- 3
a <•
»M
1
in
'if in 1- in CM in
d d CM
s i u a p j j j a o o ajnssaJd uea[/\|
186
- o
r K'
hf^F CO
m
1 1
«
CO
»a
111 »! X
16 if o
' 1 - r-~
« Bi CM
SI
4 Blfl
a \
o
u CO,
<t o re m
ti
a
5 ~ < o
CO
Q.
1 s
u o in
B*^^ Q.
? in
ra ro
o ^ <
a^ W c
CD S »' <
OT CO x ^ ^ ^
O _ o
i
CO (D CD OT
— TI o
"5
U-
°
2 1
;^top CO
m
R <•
^r T3
a
c=
ro
.., , f
t 1 "T I r
cDooi^coinTi-cocM-<-o
^ o ro
o
O T - C M c o T t m c D f ^ o o c D CO
d d d d d d d d d I i I I I I I I I
"a3
s i u a p j j j a o o ajnssaJd OS S)ua!3jjjaoo ajnssaJd uij/y T3
O
o
CO c:
O^^SOKBI
X CD
CD
in (X^^^^"
J, 3 ^ i ^XiX
i ^ —
CO * y^^ CD
»>^
-"J
a
1' XJ
a !^r Q.
o
- h~ ' »s2%
B)
o
CM 1
c
Sr \J .if o
(O
i. o 'L_
l^ a re OT
A? Q.
< E
-^g^ \ 1o^ o
CL 0) o O
o o
'^& i^ m ra CM
O .3^ c
lyi^ CD S < d
1 iPSi
J ''^
OT
O
CO
_ 3
UllS
CT
lode
01 Li- S
IO ^fl^^%«%
^
K
Im K O
o
—o in Cff""
V
T- in
j^ST'
CM
1
u3
I
Tl-CM-'-OOCO'^CMOCM'^CDOO
d ' T-: ' csi O O O O O O O O
I I I I
1 1 •
S)U3p|j:^900 a j n s s a J d uea|A| s}ua!3!jjaoo ajnssaJd xe|/\|
187
^^^, ^^^. o
^ ^^^^^^^ Avs.......... S P CD - * " * » »
CO
J''* Ir /a.
CO
CL
O 'B « cJ
in D
•ftj X 03 i
Q CO «W % * R , » Q. -
OT 3 CO
jS O H-
1 «J
fByy MX OT
CD 1=
• B
=: c o o a
o 1—
h-
> K'° « CO -o
LZ
1
X
a r if f CM
/ " ' w
= c
X S) if 3
922 C
in
1 - CM
IS CM X c
«X«iy X O g
o
o " .5f*»"
B
< CM
ts oo oo >t- in
mr
« ^ " ^
QQ O
U3
ttack
0)
a " a.
m l ^ ' ^ B 1 "s ra ro
yW [t - CO
hS* ' % < S
I <
o »
1
ft ft
o o
i .1 TB' ifc.'S^?* 0) CD SI
< ra
CD 1 ro
o
e
X T»58i. ^_ c X 1
CO
< in
Ic'Jfti
» • * miA j ^ ^ ^ " ' *
• * ^
%a
R XI T3
^^paaiB H 1
1 r~™ s* ro
- o
• ^ i n c o m c M i n T - i n o
o •<- CM CO Tl- i n CD ro
d ^. d O ^. d
O O
^. O d °. 1 1 1 1 1 o
CO
s;ua!3!jâoo ajnssaJd uj|/\|
sûapjjjaoo ajnssajd aS c
•53
T3
1 (£
o ; O
......... .....
^\
^rv
^^y,»
,_
V ' % i ^ ^ ^
a
I
\ X TS^S^
VI a R ^ M T l
3 \ »
jto.
s . i ^ S ^ ^
x^Si ^ i n I CD
CD
CO •
' "a 3 \
a **
alT^
X &
^B
CD
XI
Q.
O
_
03
cC
-
c3
r
cg
;t «
is A^?
a >
-
o
h-
CM
1
:
Q.
O
03 IX Y R
225
le of Attack
OT p
-
I 3
C
/ U o
cg X
< re CO
•V
W TI " X
^ C n
«» C ro
wr
|: X
c < o Q.
U- >
- 6
i - oo E
o o
O
^ o
Angle
X <> f a! ID. ; ra
- (' '
i: 1
Ix
O a I "
-
m
CO ': C CM
^3 1 : *^
OT
o h
: 5 ml^
X iS^^XOI
M^J^^"
d
£
II S
c3 2 " a _ o
i 3
nH
gl ' < i ^ M
^« '"m*!^^
CT
. 1 c^ 1 1 ' " ' ' ^ W^ * a 3 « X CD
i
li- s B» ^ ^ ^
. in
- 13 ^ m ^ g '
'1
^Jlx^'" R . • ^^'
r
. if 'M^ \ 1 —
W^«\ aRSSW< 1 . — .
- w - i n -«-.» '1
co CM T - o T - CM CO •«*- i n CO r-~ «3 m CM in T- in o UO
o d d d1 d1 d1 d1 d1 d1 d1 o1 CM T^ d d1
siuajSjjâoQ ajnssaJd U6a|/\| siuajsfjjaoo ajnssaJd xe|/\j
188
O
CO
B) Q
nnel
leC
a 'Ssij^^^
'l in
i^l^rf a OT 3
a, B ^ i r * * / CO
O 1-
{ To X %y C/J TJ
-^—Win
25 270
X
»s **• "5
a U-
B^ ft
B S ^ X R
s ]/
« CM
: U
CO,
7 *« : re in
CM
O
PJML B c
m
i^ g
OO
tre
: ^ CQ
^~ : o ^^ in
l'*«"*
r»* R^^ta
-a
<<•
c
m Q.
ra
Q.
ro
J*S#^ CO
O
• s i ^ . » T ~
c I-
^* » i , ^ ^ / r ) .03
OT
<
E
< o O
ro
CD CO o
CO
in
xi •y.^Bg "ff 1 ^ -
. ^ S X TJ
BnflS c
«J
» ro
flfi
o
ro
• * 3
li' CO in CM in r- ir3 O CJ
o c? d fN d ^ d c3 m CO
c3 O O C3
"03
s)uai3!jâo3 ajnssaJd QS s;ua!3!jjaoo ajnssajd U!|/\| TJ

O
, ^v-^-^
*iMî^^^ c
eCp
nnel
s CD
OJ
!oi^ 3p**'8t'« A OT CD
s
N j ! f^x";^ o h- JD
co -•
L'
CL
1
if
= c o
H
U- >
X ^sr
M
x V c
.i£ o
K <• U .CO
'^
^tta
J / IH ro
Q.
E
^^-t" o
o
o
O
Angle
1 X
-
r! CO
P
CN
CM
d
03
O
CD
* ^
>i
'^^"^F^
hiHSl^
3
CT
»
y^^''^"
9fdStrr B . y | * i S % ) *
in S
ts
II" M^»
T - O T - c M c O " ! i - i n c D i ^
O O O O O O O O
1 1 1 1 1 I 1
s i u a p i j j a o o ajnssaJd ueaiAl
189
o
- CO
1 &s^^ CO
a ! *^^^'M!if. . 1 Q. _
cale C
Tunne
in
S.
Jo
« x^ W T3
if ' xt ^ c o
X
* j ^ if 3• J ^
»" X " s in CD
» <• - CM
R\ I CM in_
!â X
o"
CO
stt « o
- oo CQ in
in
^k"* a.
ro
%?* 4 re - in
CO
X SI
^ x
v
<
o o ^3
0) CD ro
ra o
K fSt^Si^rVi. CO
# c
s«
< m "5
"^Ki B U-
TJ
BT* tCSt'^^mS 1 c
n" « ^ — 1 1 1 i 1" l_l ro
.03
i n r o i n c M i n T - i n o ro
^. d <^. dO ^. d °. o
O O O CO
"53
s}ua!3!jâoo ajnssaJd a s TJ
o
O
^.-.-.^^ ~-.<Q. ; • " • " - •
^S^ •tf
i
CO
\ 7^^^^' w
a
CD
CD
IT "^.j/«>]
x"^ ^Sl^™Wft CD
CC ^^sP^ .Q
4 a Q. _ Q.
: H
c SL* , O 03 " O
Tunn
- 1^ S)
cale
? • *a'
CS
<3« >%(| Bi
X
c
r
S
IT W -a iC
o
O CO
- CN u
.1
= cz
SS
" re re ro
if 3 Q.
xfiltiJ < < E
LîSt " •^ • * s
o o
î a O o O O
fl
0) Q. X 1 _a> CO
X V ^ % ra C) CD ra CM
Bî^B_
T^
?"£. i <
c CD c d
ro 3
8 fen \<
o H t9
a *» i CO T3 ^^^ CT
d
CD —
3
U- 3 X a ^
y^,R s 1 4
1
IT
«
1 •^
'
^T
1
1
K
%• . " . 1J _• ^
m
S
- ! li&
i :
1
SI ^
-X
•<t CM OO CD -^ CSI O CSJ T j -

T - O T - C M C O ' ^ i n C D h - ;
d d1 d1 di d1 d1 d> dI d d d d d d
s)ua!3|jâo3 ajnssaJd uBa|y\| s}ua!3!jâoo ajnssaJd XB|/\|
190
O
-- vij
a
1 Jx^m a'
CO
X
S X
%px in
«,«**ssêtwi
^ " . »^ ^w^ CO
S
#[
-J
a
O
« B J#^
H - r--
CN
«Bi\
!s m o
(3 CM in,
t\ X CJ CM
\»X; m
<
•
CO
m
- oo OQ
<) T— m
Q. _
I a.
ale C
unne
OT
3) m
^"^ X i CO H
<
o H ^^si
£
^ ^ ^ « JO
W T3 .03
O OT
= c
CD
3 '3 O
U- > y^ CO
"5
K â| m
a < • s • * U-
ro
1 - O .03
1^ CD m •* CO CM 1 - O ro
o
d d d d d d d CM CO •* m CO CO
s}uaj3!jjaoo ajnssaJd aS "a3

s}uai3!jjaoo ajnssajd U!|/\| T3
O
o
. A . . . . . . . ^ - — -— --_
CO / ^ a CD
; r. « J ! ^ ^^s«
CD
in ' ^ £ ^
s«
)
" .^..
CO CD
s
« .Q
Q.
-
O
I^
"*> O
CM ^1
e Q.
xa,/^
O CD c
in J 9. C ii. o
CO
- CM 03 c o '^
gle Of Atta
i/ind Tu
ull Sea
©J
ro
CL
E
o
Li- > o O
CM
_^ „«»
X <>
< d
CD
O
CD
Wl L_
3
CT
^^^B^4
X »
•<J-
ei
S ^ B
1 »_f " 1 ^ ^ ^ i
CM O CM -* CD oo T- CS|
d1 d1 ' T^1
d ° •?
s}ua|3!Jâoo SJ nssaJd uea|/\j s;ua!3!J4ao3 ajnssaJd XB|/\J
191
o
CD
CO
m
CO
o
1^
CN
in CM
CM O
CM
O
m
0 OO g
in
ra Q.
s: m ro
CO H
J3
o ro
o
CD CO
m
ro
OT
CDooi~-cDinTj-cocMT-o o
o d d d d d o d o CO
"53
sjuapijjaoo ajnssajd a s sûapjjâoo ajnssaJd u!iy\| T3
o
O
CO
CD. / * ^^^x
B ;
c
O CD CD
uun
CD
ale
^ X
iSS*'^
"cofg CD
o H .Q
U) TJ Q.
^3 c
o
U- 3
Q. c
2£ o o
X o u .CO
re CD
OT ro
/B? t: O CL
< CO E
r7~; o
o ,^^ 3 O O
03 <
o- U- in
ra CM
c
•ififx < w d
CD
^
i «(«, 3
CT
: X
4 ft^^K X B<
« « B
A^T *:^^S*
' • #*^P^
m in T- CM
d d
s}ua!3!jâoo ajnssaJd uea|/\| s:(ua!3!Jâoo ajnssaJd X6|A|
192
o
r CO
x ' « ^ CO
1X ^^Xm.
J>a^R
a 1 'LsSfrliJi ^
4
m
-J \W9^
R „"» ? x|
J?, » ; X
CO
aX "
- or^
Q. et CO
O CD B » A CM o
nd Tunn
CO
II Scale
s in in
CM
» CM .^
u
• *
m
«x\ m * •
t in
3 O C
Tap
if 3 >^ \ < , ,
\ ^ CD Q,
<C o
0)
X U
» ""II V
j m a
Ang
Scale
' CO
BB J
• *i§'
1 ^ ^ y I "^
5)
a' <* CD
xS
B
X»
"—^^®i"
» in
ro
0 .03
ro
o
1 CO
o
o o h - c q i n T t c o r v j i - o "53
TJ
d d d d d d d d o
sûapijâoQ ajnssaJd a s s}ua!3!jjaoo ajnssaJd UJIAI d
o~ 03
03
J3
03
• i
I 3 " "^5 x«
M
\\
x:
Q.
c3 " O
K y
/ c
c3 ^^
- r
c
L' c:
I 3 Tx .^ o
ttac
- c CO
g
ro
Ci.
Ix \ < E
C3 o
o O
Q. 03
CO
I !?f O CD ra CM
3#^t<
< d
ax ro
o
3
H 03
L-
c 3 i J! W T3 3
Full
Win
c3 # # CT
x fl&»
I 3
h a <»
Fl i
r vf^ ^ " 1 1 1 1
O CM • > * CO0O-i-CM'«a-CO0OCM
d d d d ' T- T- T- T-
1 1 1 1 I I I I
s)uaj3!jâoo ajnssaJd ueajAj s}ua!3[jjaoo ajnssaJd xe|/\j
193
"-K )«BD,«
Q.
CL O 1«
^ -. a^«i^
CD c
R l*j^
ro c "S : C»
O 3 a .1° *
w t^
T3
»
^ S-i
u-
a . •
o
CM
O
CQ CM
m
a.
ro
*»,
e
"I", o
ro
«^ CO
'X ^J^îi
. » 1= » I»ftp
^ ^' aKr
T3
ea '^'S^^w^
X4^^
ro
^ 1 "^'"P
o c ) i ~ ~ - c o i n T t c o c M i - o •"r "^r-^ ro
o
d d d d d d d d i i i
•*
I
in
I
CO
I I CO
s}ua!3!J4aoo ajnssaJd a S s;ua!3!jjao3 ajnssaJd U!|/\| "33
TD
o
o
c
03
03
03
n
SD.
O
a.
Q. O o
o o "53 U .CO
. CO
re .03 ro
< ro 3
o
CO TI
1^ Q.
E
o o
C O O
iJ
ra ra 1^
CM
c
< d
3
CT
CO CO T-oocO'^csiocsj'^fcpoq
d d o d d o d d
I I I I
sûajSjjâoQ ajnssaJd U6a|/\| siuapjjâoo ajnssaJd XB|/\|
194
O
1
1
R
"^mm\ CO
J JM^ b
m
1 = » !X^C^â R 1 g,
CO
1 X aiS
CL
u.
CJ
1 Sr^ \
a
*4«l)^
-
O
r-
CN
302
9
O "ciJ .i
i CN
^
03 c Ii .^
c C1 CM
OT
O 3 t u
re in
rn "^^ <; ti • *
TJ , o < ^.^ o
3 c fc, c r oo CQ >^ Q iCM
n
U- 5 » '^ o ^^ a.
r " 0)
B ro
135
s ra
<•
< c
iW.(S
<
^'sMs,
1 B xf'^p^ o
CD
ro
o
CO
1 •si
»» Soi^^JF^
in
» a a ^ jn T3
C
xV%^ki, ro
! ^^^'^S^V' 9
1 ro
oo h- c D i n ' < a - c o c M T - o o
CO
O C3 c3 CD CD CD CD CD
•53
sûanjjâoo ajnssaJd a s s}ua!3ii|aoo ajnssaJd ujjAl O
o
C
03
03
03
X3
Q.
o
o
CO
CJ 'L-
ro
re D.
E
1*- o
O O
° < 00
CM
ra d
c 03
< L-
3
CT
ij-
C M T - O O C O - ' l - C M O C S l T t C D o q
-r-: d d d d cJcpcpcp
sûapjjjaoo ajnssaJd ueajAi sûapjjâoo ajnssaJd XB|AI
195
o
(D. r CD
w™. CO ID.
Q. O
O -TT CL O
0 c in O
03
ro c3 K ^ CO
O
CO " ^
_ TJ o
3
u.
.£
g
f4 - h~
CM
.^ CM
11 m
X < •
y CM
ttac
CN O
re O
ti CM
°^^1 < o < ^ in
QQ CN
o - oo m
,i^« _fl3 Q.
a
x*«
^4 ?*s?i O m ra ro
ja IS
a X
1 B c - CO
c
a
^ R« < <
1 o ro
CD o
CO
,
" # ^ ! ^ m "3
li-
""^ • *
TJ
C
ro
1 î v^-r
ojooi^comTa-cocNT-• o ro
cMcO'încorôocDo o
o d d d o d d d c) CO
s}ua!3!jjaoo ajnssaJd 05% s;ua!3!J4ao3 ajnssaJd um

•fl3
T3
O
o
i1 1 gs
CL
Q.
O 03
03
: .L'l
" o3
03 c
03
ro c3
O X3
» *K CO " ^ QL
_ T3
w^ « -3 .£ o
U- g
»T»« .^ o
» <•
leof ttac
4 ' 4 CO
3«a ro
<r CD.
E
" ^ o
O
Si*' CD
fi H
u1 ra CM
- c3 " X % c
\x? =L
. a
< d
\ iW^Ml "la'a^S-.
«M}^^ " 3
r3 x ^ ^ ^ ' xu1< " CT
c3
X
u3 !„#
• ^ 1-
CSJ O C M ^ C O O O T - C N T T C D O C
d d d d d ' T - T - I - T -
1 1 I 1 I I I I
s)uaj3jjjao3 ajnssaJd UBa|/\|
196
o o
- CD
Q. ?xS^^^S^
^ CO CO Q.
CL O 10
Q. O
on^ — « ' » ' '^
UllS cale C
0
in
indt unnel
03 m
.03 c ^^^^ T— ^-
ro c3 X B^^^f CO co
O „*,*« -\ »/ "a ~°
« 1?
CO "^ ^«H > /« a
_- TJ o o
- r~- s
11 a CM
7?s» X
, u- 3
5<: i n n: o
R . > S CM
fi <» u CO,
X xC/y
re
ti in"
<.
e of,
L^s
Bi
0)
CQ Q
in
CM
in
I'm ?R|'° ra Q.
= CO
^ »" c ro
1
X ^ •<—
« <
\V^^ ^^ ^%i l «a
N î o
CD
o
CD
fi s g ^ ^ " »
.03
ro
o
CO
«8uB.^
i «
'^B'^^wiir' in U3 î^» «
^*^1; -* •<t
1 TJ
X
c
a"i ro
1 r 1 '^ ^
("I HK^9Ste|«
o •— T-- 1 1
ro
CSj T- 0C3 CD -^ CM O
O CN
I I
Tj- I
CD I oo O
^ —
CM
^ _ o
•^ d d d d 1 1 CO
s;ua!3!jâoo ajnssaJd a s "a3
sûapjjâoo ajnssaJd U!|/\| T3
o o
o
CO
1 CL
Q.
O Q. O
CL
?ki c
03
in ^ ^ 0 O rr
T, 03
* 03
03 c
^—
VJ OT C
03 c T—
03
R ' yh
OT
O
C
3 xyS
R | CWco
^ X2
«
2l ^ Z
-= c
**«
-
O
r^
SD.
o
^
S i
4 CM
"^ ? 4'
\a
c
ii in a o
w u .CO
igle of ttac
yMx
a <> a • - CM
CM 'l-
re OT
/* «: u1 ^
'I Q.
>»a
<
•^ K O
< E
o
gieo
^*~ 7*^^ O O
- oo o
CO
c 4^*^^^ - CO c
T—^ j,B*« < » r» m < d
^ 1 03
NS*^ ;.;
o
CD P- « H%^^P
• 9
.
CD
o
a ^.jC^mi.
> ^ - B
» jyîMwwfra
m x ^
» s
^ g a^
KE ^ 1 .*^ fi
in o in T- in CM in CM in T- m o in T-
d d ' -^ ' csi T-^ d d
1 1 • 1
siuapjjâoQ ajnssaJd UBa|/\| sûapjjâoo ajnssaJd XBJAI
197
o o
a. X Q
r "->
CO CM " " ^ ^ S ^ . X (D.
CL o 1i^W^ "
l^&"« !aB £2. O
O -TT
*f
03
OT
CD
C
C g
^ K
m
CO
'^^^^S^m ^
W^J6S>^ 1
V ^
03 CZ
ro 1=
O
CO
_
3
"^
TJ
J raj*
JE'^J, O 3
TJ
-=
3 .—
C ^L
- o
r~-
H I '-
Li- 5 s
CM r «
£l
i "xT
225
ir
X o
'I' c
c?
CS
c\ a
H O
o
CM
: v^ W
< o CQ c "Sfi a
00
a
"^ « >c^- oo - oc
CM
^^^^ ire
m
_a; Q.
"5) fiX
B
if^^xT <
c in
CO -s \ a
<
ro
i S Ssi*' i «
**" .o
M
a>
lli4/ o
1 KU
.03
ro
o
a
1 â « S ^ » '
c: CO
CD
a <
'W^Jî'^ i 1
f in IT
St
f^ ^ a
fi T3
ro
X l=«^k m^^Se
r^t.
^1 1 r^.**—1 r ^—'
^SoP«f*a
—s-3J^ W.^.-^.-.m.
ft
1
ro
o
CO
o o r ^ c o m T t c o c M t - o c M c o - ^ m c o r ^ o o c D "53
d d d d d d d d T3
s}ua!3!J4aoo ajnssaJd OS o
"o
CL 03
fi Q. O 03
"vT
'T 03 c 03
JD
OT C=
S) O 3 Q.
CO •^ O
— wind
Full:
SB^fa
a o
- « <•
u 10
CNH 4 re ro
ti Q.
< E
hp
^ffijW o O
o
O
a> T—
m ^\x^! > ra CO
- CO
•t—
?'
^
%<^ c d
a « B
s» «
<
ai^^3(lx.. 3
o CT
- CD
^»
m •^
• *
(
fi
r
ir o in T- m 0g
o d ' 1- •
1 1
s t u a p j j ^ a o Q a j n s s a J d uea|/\|
S ; U 3 j 3 ! M 3 0 3 3 j n S S 8 J d Ul|/\|
198
o o
Q. " CD
,—rci....
CO
Q. C) CO ^ ' ^ & ^ '' ""
o "ci3 in ! « W
OJ c
c - m T— '
ro
o 3
>( ^^^ CO CO y Bl*
cn
TJ
4^ /«
a *<" . ' » "1
3 c: - o £»x
^ X
a »
CL
CL
O
U- 5 CM
l^*'^ X
CD
i in .03 C ie
X
<• CM ^ ro c u
III Se
CM,
1
nd tu
Atta
CM a fS
m
Ti-
2 'J oo
—ooo CQ )J^S if g
H- CM
0 o
03
in
a.
u ro
5) in
8 a O ra
H
z CO T- " ^ 1^ X c
<
t
o Jfe. â
S) .03
ro
o CD 'W^^^R * " » =*
«Sg« * »safiJ*SAiB) ' ",^ a o
1 X a »a%VB»S
| s l ^ CD CO
It yvg go£_ "'.^.SXB tagi 5 ^ ^ ^ *

X ! in ;
in
fi "
^ i M fi I
.—' ro
' "W^ • 1 1 ' 1 1
' 1 ^^^'^^m O CM
.03
ro
•* CD oo O CM • * CO
m CM in T- 1 1 1 1 ^ — ^ - . ^ _ ^ _ o
I I I I CO
csi d
s;uai3!jjao3 ajnssaJd U!|/\| "53
sjuapjjjaoo ajnssaJd a s T3
O
o o
a. C3
c
CL
O
O
-T-
1 03
03
03 T~
03 !- M '
id turn
70—3
II Seal
03
•t
.£3
Q.
X
a O
^ -5 V* eg
U- g
'11 X
U3
eg o
o
CO
'^
Atta
X 1 >
9 eg
ro
Q.
C3
E
03
o o
o O
CM
4f [? 113 ra CO
03
c
»fl <s saii
''' < d
03
si
I M
C3 CT
C3
\
;"M
R^
i *
^ . J S '
X
CTi^P
1 — ir 3 CO I f3 C M i n T - i n o i n - i - u -)
C M T - O T - c M c o - ^ i n CO csi T- d CD • T^
I I I I I
S)ua!3|j:(ao3 ajnssaJd U6a|/\| s}ua!3!j|aoo ajnssaJd XB|AJ
199
o o
Q. r to
CL
^ o3
O
•TSS
CO
i iM ^»f*ir
a CL
CL
O
aleC
a' in
nnel
03 c
OT C CO 0
O 3
CO *- "ft JJ 4* K
O 3
_ -a ^,^ _ ^
3 .— - CN
r^ -]%
4
K ^ S
u- :i
ft
X
1 g
ca .1
3
-^ •—
c
; e U- g
^ X
in
a
» <> i eg o
Attac
»/ ** 1 eg X O
CM
cS ^ 1 8 B
IK B O
CO
al s* <f- o Q tSi « "
m
oo OOSi," a x- CD.
QQ W^J^^^MB'B ro
c) '^ o
J 0 )
f r?!e« ra
135
CO
f i^'^ " c .03
J a < \ " j!r^ a »
i sSSaaBefi ! < ro
o
^ ?.fi»
^
M I'ys^l o
Oi 1 o
C3> 9 ^ ^ % ax^
Ft
» fi :
CO
*.oj^^Kti " J^P^*^

'l^Wmx in lO
.MP"^** T3
d
i ro
\ -* L X ^ X
L
.03
:• X
8 srSSr'^ ro
1 KêVeBi ,,»)?aE»i..._
o
' ^ - ' • i • 1 CO
o q i - ^ c D i n T j - c o c M i - o CNJ O CM Tt CD OO O "53
I I I I ^ _ T3
o d d o o d o d 1 o
s)ua!3!J4aoo ajnssaJd a s s}ua!3!jjao3 ajnssaJd U!|/\|
c
O 03
o
03
Idtu nel Cp
ST 4 4
nel Cp
"Am
4 4
•*x'*'^r 03
II Sc eCp
leCp
S
: 9
Aa K S
xu- .a
X
1 » X Q.
3
OT C
' ^ " l ^ "
C ro c o
^#/ O 3 c
X X t? c
W c3
# 1
M Cg - w r; TS
"Ix c 3 .=
3 .£
K
!?fi\
U- g = "fX LI- g
c
a o
ttack
If
ttack
3
.CO
R O
X U c>
g ro
CL
a
a
'i'8 3 < IB y t L** c < E
» » i' oi'HRlfJ « - « >^ o
qlec
o r-
o O
<X
5
gle
» I I -«xTis?iii CO
X
'^fXl - c+3 W
"
'« c TI*2 tl c
CO
d
< 03
X
^%i^mx \ I—
3
; CT
s "a 1
i
X
•^ J ^ ^ < ^ i »
x"! ^ f p - ^
:*K ;
Bi?k« 1w.-tfpr*
fcilt*
I » it fi "a^^sSeP*! —.
i 1 T 1 (••'-(J ' 1 i r
SB
[ 1 1 V 1 "' 1 »-f 1
ITj C M i n T - i n o i n T - i n c M U " c o i n c M i n T - m o m T - i n
CNi 1- d d ' 1- ' csi Csj T-^ d d ' -r^
1 1 1 1 1
sjuapjjâoo ajnssaJd uea|/\| s;ua!3!jjao3 ajnssajd XB|/\|
200
O
CO
CO
o
cg
in
CM CM,
CM
m
o o
CO
OO m
Q.
m CQ
ro
CO
ro
o o
CD CO
m
TJ
c
ro
.03
ro
CO CD o
CO
"53
siuapjjâoQ ajnssaJd a S siuapjjjaoQ ajnssaJd UJIAI TJ
o
1—^D
CO fe* Q. c
s CL O 03
in ^SM ^ -1
03
~ 'ivi 03 c 03
ro
O
c3 XI
" Jfe Q.
O
^ -p
U- •
o
X re to
/eg i ro
/ * < Q.
4—
E
o o
o O
0)
ra CO
c
T— X < d
03
3
o
CD
Es ••^
t CT
X !
m : a
^f
. K K"
-a- ,f •
b
s»>. 1 \
a >x
o ^^^ «iaXJ^
SaSiS?^ — ; •
LTI in T- in CM in CO m
I
d d CM CO
siuapijâoo ajnssaJd uea|/\j
201
APPENDIX D:
GRAPHS FOR THE COMPARISON OF MODEL
SCALE AND FULL SCALE MEAN EXTREME
PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
202
5
2 • •
^
• • •
* •
& 1 • • Full scale Method 1
• UWO Methodl
CSU Method 1
0
> • 0 02 0 04 0.06 0.08 0,1 012 0. 4
-1
• •
. ,a «
• • • '
• • *
-2
• •
-3

L
Figure D.l. Three Model Comparison of Tap 11508(114) under 45 Degree AOA by
Using Method I.
3,5
•
3-
' •
2.5
••
« • •
2
• •
• 4
1.5 -
* Full scale Method II
Q. •
CJ • UWO Method II
CSU Method II
1 -
0,5 -
0 iJ 0,02 0.04 0,06 0.08 0,1 0.12 0, 4

•
( •
•y * • •
-0,5 • •>
• •
-1 -
Roughness Length (zg)
-1,5 -
Figure D.2. Three Model Comparison of Tap 11508(114) under 45 Degree AOA by
Using Method II.
203
4
3,5
«
3
•
2.5
M
• *
2 •
• « •
• •
• •
1.5
a • Full scale Method 1
o • UWO Methodl
1-
CSU Method 1
0.5 -
0 -
1 ^ 0,02 0,04 0.06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0 4
-0,5
• •
• V 4
-1 -
•
»
-1,5 -
Using Method I.
25 • • • •
• n
• • •
• Full scale Method II

a.
O • UWO Method II
CSU Method II
0,5
(1 y 0.02 0.04 0,06 0,08 01 012 0, 4

• •
• • • • • • • • • •
• • • •
•
•
Roughness Length (zO)
Using Method II.
204
0,02 • 0.04 0,06 0.08 01 012
a
O • Full scale Method I
• UWO Method I
-1,5
Figure D.5. Three Model Comparison of Taps 50320(801) under 45 Degree AOA by
Using Method I.
• •
• •
•
• •
• * • •
(1 • « *0.0?
• 0,04 0,05 0,08 01 0,^2 0. 14
• •
•
• • Full scale Method II
• UWO Method II
•
• • • •
•
• • • •
• •
•
•
-?
Using Method II.
205
0,5
• • •
002 0,04 0.06 0,08 0,1 012 0 14
5- -0 5 ^
• Full scale Method I
• UWO Method I
• •
•••
Using Method I.
•
05 -
•
• • •
• •
• • •
0-
11 OOB 004 006 0,08 • 01 0,^2 0, 4
oa • Full scale Method II
• UWO Method II
• •
•
•
• •
•
• •
•
• • • *
• •
Using Method II.
206
•
* 2* *. • • •
4
•
II 0,02 0,04 0.05 O08 0,1 0,12 0. 14
• --
• • •
•
a • •
O -- • Full seal Method 1
•
• • • • UWO Methodl
» •
• HDGH
•
•
•
•
•
Using Method I.
• • • • •
0,(ft 0 04 a06 0,08 01 0,f2
Q.
O • Full scale Method II
• UWO Method II
Figure D.IO. Three Model Comparison of Tap 50300(1115) under 45 Degree AOA by
Using Method II.
207
4
•
•
3 •
• • " • "
•
0
• • m • •
• • •
2 •
a • • Full scale Method 1

O •
• UWO Method 1
CSU Method 1
0
( - 0,02 0^4 * 0 06 0 08 01 012 ,0,14 016
• 0, 8
•• •
• •
•
•• •
t •
-2 -
Roughness Length (z,)
Figure D.l 1. Three Model Comparison of Tap 11508(114) under 315 Degree AOA by
Using Method I.
•
•
•
3
• •
2.5 % •
• • •
2
« • Full scale Method II
1.5
• UWO Method II
CSU Method II
( 0 02 0^4 • 0,05 0,08 0,1 0,12 014 0,16 0 8

•J- • • • •
•
Using Method II.
208
0
*t\ r* \ ir^^^. 1
•
, ^ 002 0 04 0,06 O08

•
0.1 0.12 014 0, 18
016
-05
-1 -
•
•
-1,5 -
a. • • • Full scale Method 1
O • • ii • •
• « • • UWO Method 1
-2
•
•
t CSU Method 1
-2.5 •
• • •
-3
•
-3 5
-4 -
Using Method I.
m
* » •
'-^ • • •
(1 0.02 0tl4 0,05 0,08 0,1 0,12 014 0,16 0, IB
-0.5

Q. •
O •
• UWO Method II
• •
• • CSU Method II
• •
• •
• ii
•
Using Method II
209
•V y *
%t • t
0.02 0,04 0,06
0.1 012 0,14 016
a.
o • Full scale Method I
• UWO Method I
^* »"
Using Method I.
0
•4- -'• 0,02
•
004
• •
0,06 0,08
•
0,1 0,12 0.14 0,16 0, 8
a. • Full scale Method II

o
•
• UWO Method II
•
• •
-y
• •
• •
• • •
• •
•
•
R o u g h n e s s Length (Zg)
Using Method II.
210
._^ • » ^ _ l
0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0.1 012 014 016 0
I UWO Method I
Using Method I.
*K.* A \yL
0,02 0,04 O06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 016 0,
a.
o • Full scale Method II
I UWO Method II
••• *
Using Method II.
211
•• • • • •
•
1 0,02 0,04 0 06 0,08 0,1 012 014 016 0.
•
— — - -
•
m — - —
oa.
• —•-
• • " • Full scale Method I
• • UWO Method I
• • •
•
- -
•
•
• •
• •
•
•
•
Using Method I.
•
•••
*• •• • • • •
•
II 0,02 0.04 0,06 0,08 01 012 0,14 0,15 0, 8
•
a. • • • Full scale Method 1
o •
• • UWO Methodl
• • •
• •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
Using Method II.
212
•
• •
• •
•- • *•
*•• <J
K •
1 0,05 0,1 015 0,2 0,25 03

• UWO Methodl
n / CSU Method 1
• • • •
•
• •
• • • •
•
«
• •
•• •
• •
Roughness Length (zO)
Using Method I.
•
n •
t<** • « •
II 0,05 0,1 0 15 0,2 0,25 03

• UWO Method II
CSU Method II
•
••
••
« m
• •
•
•
• •
•
« •
Roughness Length (z,)
Using Method II.
213
6
5
•
4
•
• •
• •
3
•
• • •
•
O 2 • Full scale Method 1
• UWO Methodl
CSU Methodl
1 -
0
1 0 05 U 0,1 015 0.2 0,25 0 3
• •
•• •
- 1 •
• • * • • •
-2
Using Method I.
s -
—•
•
•• •
*
«• • ^
3 .
•X
• • •
n • Full seals Method II
• UWO Method II
CSU Method II
f 1
1 • oos , r . 0.1 015 0.2 0.25 0 3
••• •» •
•
.J,. Roughness Length (Zg)
Using Method II.
214
1
•
•
0,5 -—
\ X* • •
•
••> • •• •
0 • •
1 0,05 01 0,15 02 0,25 03
-0,5
a.
o • Full scale Method 1
-1 •
• • • UWO Methodl
• • •
-1,5 • •
•"
•
-2 •
•
•
-2,5
• •
1
• •
1
-3
Using Method I.
• • •
* 44
*<
II 0,05 0,1 0 15 0,2 0,26 03
a.
• UWO Method II
• •
•
• • •
• •
•
• •
•
•
Using Method II.
215
0,05 0,1 015 0,2 0,25 •
oa • Full scale Method I
I UWO Methodl
Using Method I.
» Full scale Method II
• UWO Method II
Using Method II.
216
• •
0,05 0,1 015 02 0,25
oa • Full scale Method I
• UWO Methodl
Using Method I.
J^
II
•
0,05
• *• •
•
01 0,15 0,2 025 03
Q.
• UWO Method II
• • •
•
\x • •
•
•
• • •
• • «• •
-2,5
Using Method II.
217
5
4
•
• •
• •
«
• •
3 •
* *
•* •
•
o- •>2 • Full scale Method 1
O
• UWO Method 1
CSU Method 1
0
( • «.oi • %02 ^ «,03 0 04 0.05 0 06 0.07 0.08 |gO09 01
• • •
•• •
-1
R o u g h n e s s L e n g t h (Zg)
Using Method I.
3,5
•
3 *x .4
**> •
• •
• • • • •
2,5
• ••
2

5" 15- • UWO Method II
i CSU Method II
1-
0,5
0
&.j2 ^^,03 0,04 005 0.06 • 0 07 0,08 O09 01
( •»> v«*^ •
-0.5
n
R o u g h n e s s L e n g t h (zg)
Using Method II.
218
••
«» • • i
*• \ y • • • •
•
4 •
II 0,01 0.02 0,03 0,04 0,05 006 0,07 0,08 0,09 01
n
• UWO Method 1
-1,5
• • CSU Method 1
•
• •* • / •
•
* •
-25 —•
^
>*
Using Method I.
1-
n
•
• • • • •
••
( 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 005 006 0,07 0,08 0,09 01

oa. • • UWO Method II
• •
CSU Method II
• •
•
• ••
•
« • • •
•
«•
•
•
-3 J
Using Method II.
219
(I aoi 0 02 003 0,04 005 0,06 0,07 0,08 009 0
a.
• UWO Method I
• •
•
Using Method I.
0,5 •
•
• ^ •• • • •
^r* •
1 aoi 0,02 0,03 0 04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0 08 0,09 0
-0,5

- 1 •
• • UWO Method II
• • •
• •
• •
^ •
•
- *
• •
•
•
Using Method II.
220
^ < " - \*
°°^ °°^ 0°3 0.04 0,06 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0
o > •
• UWO Method I
Using Method I.
•
• « * ^ * •• / • • •
0 0.01 0.02 0,03 0,04 0,05 006 0,07 0,08 0,09 01
-0 5
a. • Full scale Method II
o
• UWO Method II
•
• •
•• • •
« •
•
•
•
•
•*• * •
Using Method II.
221
•• ^-
0 01 0,02 0,03 0.04

0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0
Q.
O
• UWO Method II
-1,5
^** *~
Using Method I.
05
• • •
• •• •
' •
0 • 0,01 O02 0 03 0,04 O05 O06 0 07 0,08 0,09 01
Q.
•
1^
•
• •
•• •
• •
•
•
Using Method II.
222
APPENDIX E:
GRAPHS FOR THE COMPARISON OF MODEL
SCALE AND FULL SCALE AREA
AVERAGED MEAN EXTREME
PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
223
3i
2.5
•
2
•
• • • • ' •
1,5
* • • • •
•
•
1 P!|—
• • Full scale Method 1
a.
o • UWO Method 1
0,5
. CSU Method 1
0
1 0,02 0,04 O06 0,08 0,1 012 014 0.16 0 8
•
0 •
-0,5 • • • •
• •• •
1 •-
-1
-1,5
Figure E.l. Three Model Comparison of Area 1 under 315 Degree AOA by Using
Method I.
• •
• •
•
*
•
• n •
•
•
•
,, •
a
o • UWO Method II
CSU Method II
(1 0.02 0,04 0,06 0.08 01 012 014 0,16 0, 8

•
• •
•
V •
•
Figure E.2. Three Model Comparison of Area 1 under 315 Degree AOA by Using
Method II.
224
••• « i • •
*•
1 ^ 0.02 0 04 0.06 0,08 0,1 012 014 0,16 0, 18
-0,5
^
• • • Full scale Method 1
• UWO Methodl
,S: CSU Method 1
•
• « • •
• •
• • •
•
• •
• •
Method I.
0.5 n
•
•
I
•• • • •
0 ' •
( • 0,02 0*4 * 0.06 0.08 0.1 • 0,12 014 0,16 0. 8
-0.5
a • UWO Method II
u
n • • • CSU Method II
- 1 •
• • •
• • • •
•
• A.
•
-1.5
•
•
m
-2
Figure E.4. Three Model Comparison of Area 2 under 315 degree AOA by Using
Method II.
225
1- , ,_
05
•• •»
•
0 X* •• •• * * . , r.
1 tJ O02 004 0,06 008 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0, 8
-0,5
-1
E3
• • Full scale Method 1
5" -15
• • UWO Methodl
•ii CSU Methodl
-2 ^* • • i
• •
-2 5 • ••
•
•
•
-3
•
-3,5
-4
Method I.
•• •• •
• il
• • • •
(1 — 0^2 008 0,1 • 012 0,14 0 8
0«4 • 0.06 0,16

Q.
o f • UWO Method II
CSU Method II
• •
• •
•
•
• • •
•
• •
\ •
Figure E.6. Three Model Comparison of Area 3 imder 315 Degree AOA by Using
Method II.
226
05
•• •
0,04 006 O08 0,1 012 0,14 016 01
05
a.
• UWO Method I
t :
Method I.
•t •
• •
• t • •
II 0.02 0t)4 0.06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0, 18
Q. • • • Full scale Method II

o •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Method II.
227
*!•• •» ^ •
• •*• •^ • • >
. m * * r- , •
(I • 0,02 0,04 006 008 0,1 0,12 014 016 0, 18
oa • Full scale Method 1
• UWO Method 1
-2,5
Method I.
•1 ••
•
•
•
• • •
0 • 0*4 0,06 0,08 0,1 • 0,12 014 0,16 0 18
0,02
m^' • • Full scale Method II

•
• • • UWO Method II
• •
• •
•
• • •
i •
•
•
Figure E.IO. Three Model Comparison of Area 5 under 315 Degree AOA by Using
Method II
228
05
•••• ••
« •
0,02 0.04 0.06 OOS 0,1 0,12 014 0,16
-0,5
Q.
• UWO Method I
-2,5
Figure E.l 1. Three Model Comparison of Area 6 under 315 Degree AOA by Using
Method I.
A^-^
II 0 02
•
•
0,04
»
0,06 0 08
H
0,1 • 012 014 016 0, 18
-0,5

•
• UWO Method II
• •
• •
•
•
•
• •
%•
•
•
•
Method II.
229
3,5 - .
3 •
•
2,5
• *•
• ••• •
••
2
—-% •
•
1,5
a. • Full scale Method 1
O • UWO Method 1
CSU Method 1
1
0,5
0 4* i^' * »02 t)03 0,04 0.05 O.l^ 0,07 0.08 , ,0,09 01

1 \ •• • •
—••
•
•
-0.5

-1 -
Figure E.13. Three Model Comparison of Area 1 under 0 Degree AOA by Using Method
I.

Q. • UWO Method II
o CSU Method II
11*^ ^ 1 • »f2 •^Ô0,03 O04 0,05 0 06 O07 0,08 nÔS 0
II.
230
0,6
04
E3
0,2
• *u • •
0 • •
*—
1 • * 0,01
( 0,02 • 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 * 0,07 008 009 01
• *
-0,2
•

1.,!
5- -04 • U W O Method 1
CSU Method 1
m—
• • • •
-0,6 . •
•
•
« «—
-0,8
•
• • -•
* •
-1 • •
•
-1,2 •
•
-1 4
Figure E.l 5. Three Model Comparison of Area 2 under 0 degree AOA by Using Method
0,4
n
0,2
• —
0
*
•4 * * •*
,•
• • ^01 • 0 02 ^.03 0.04 0 05 0.06 * 0.07 0.06 0,09 01
-0,2

=•-04
• UWO Method II
. CSU Method II
-0,6
•
• • • •
• •
-0.8 • ^
• • • •
•
•
-1 ••
• *
• •
Figure E.16. Three Model Comparison of Area 2 under 0 degree AOA by Using Method
II.
231
•
•
• •
• • •
•
*
• •• • • •
1 0,01 0,02 0,03 004 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0 1

& -1 • UWO Methodl
^ CSU Method 1
• n
•
• • •
• •
• • • •
•• •
Figure E.l 7. Three Model Comparison of Area 3 under 0 Degree AOA by Using Method
I.
1.5
•
1
•
0.5
• •
n
••,,
<4 • • •
0
1 0.01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 O06 0,07 O08 0,09 0 1
-0.5
-1 • Full scale Method II

• UWO Method II
-1.5
m « CSU Method II
•
•
• •
-2
•• •
•
•
-2.5
•
-3
«
-3.5
II.
232
• ••
0 ~- •
II 0,01 0,02 O03 0,04 0,05 0,06 O07 0,08 0,09 0
a
(J • Full scale Method I
• UWO Method I
I.
•
•
i/. ^ •'
•f
•
O04 0,05 0,06

•
0,07 0,08 0,09 01

( 1 0.01 0,02 0,03

•
• • •
•
- 1 • —•--• •
• ••
•
• • •
•
•
-1.5 •
II.
233
>k\ _•_,
0,01 0 02 0,03 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09
O -2 • Full scale Method I
• UWO Method I
X:
Roughness Length ( Zg )
0,5
•
•
•
.*» • - •
• • ! * , • 4. • • '•
0,02 0 03 O04 0,05 006 0 07 0,08 0,09 01
(1 »* • t i o i •
Q.
O
• UWO Method II
• • •
•
• • • •
•
«• •
•
• •
•
•
R o u g h n e s s Length ( Zg )
II.
234
V •
o'l 0 02 0,03 0,04 O05 0,06 007 0,08 O09 Oil
» Full scale Method I
• UWO Method I
-2,5
X*
-3,5
•
0 ,•
# • '
1 • >).01 0,02 0 03 O04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 009 01
• •
-0.5

H
• UWO Method II
•
• •
• •
•
•
II.
235
4
——
•
3
•
• n
2
• — 1• — I • » >• __
•• •
ii • •
1 * • •
a. • Full scale Method 1
o
• UWO Methodl
0
CSU Method 1
1 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 01 012 0 4
1 •
*• * • n
• •» • • •
-1
• •
•
•
•
-2 • •
-3 .
Method I.
•
3
•
• •
2
n# • • • *
• •
• •
1- • •
Q. • Full scale Method II
o • UWO Method II
0 CSU Method II
y 0.02 0.04 0.06 O08 01 012 0 4
( • • • • M ^ *
•
-1 -
•
• •
Method II.
236
05
•
• •
uu* * 1 » * •
1 •
0,02 0l)4 O06 008 •01
• o.;2 0
* •
•
n • Full scale Method I
O
•
• • • UWO Method I
•
CSU Method I
•
**
*
«
•
Method I.
0,5 -
PI
•
0 *P*****.
(1 • 04n 004 0 06 0.08 ^ • 01 0.^ 0. 14
-0,5
•
• •
o -1 • UWO Method II
•
• CSU Method II
•
• • *'
• •
-1,5
•
• m
-2 » •
-2,5
Method II.
237
• •
2,5
• •
•
• •
2
•
V• •
• •
1,5 • -• •
•
1 - • •

5 0,5
• UWO Methodl
CSU Method 1
0^
r 1
11 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0,1 012 0, 4
-0.5 • •
•
• • •
• •
m
-1 -
• ••
•
-1.5
-2
Method I.
•
•
• * • •
• •
• • •
•
•
• •
•
oa • UWO Method II
CSU Method II
(1 U 0.02 0^04 006 0.08 01 0.12 0. 4

• •
• • • • • •
• % • * • • •
•
•
Roughness
Method II.
238
25
•
2 -----
•
1 5 •
•
• •
•
•» • •
•
• •• • •
1 •
• •
Q. • • Full scale Method 1
(J
- • UWO Methodl
0
1 • 0,02 O04 006 0,08 01 0,12 0, 14
• •
-0,5
* f4* * *
•
• • • • •
• •
•
•
•
-1
-1 ,1
R o u g h n e s s length (zg)
Method I.
• • •
•

Q. 0,5
o • UWO Method II
0,08 0,1 0,12

0,02 0,04 0,06
Method II.
239
1 • 0,02 004 0,06 0,08 0,1 012 0 14
-1
-2
-
•
O -3
• • • UWO Method 1
-4
• • • •
• •
-5 • .
•
•
-6
• • •
-7 •
-8
Method I.
1
• •
•
• • •
•
1 0*0i • 0,04 006 0,08 •01 012 0, 14
a.
o • • Full scale Method II
• UWO Method II
• • •
•
• • • • •
• • *
• • • •
• •
•
Method II.
240
O.CB • 0 04 0,06 0,08 *0,1 0,»2 14
-0,5
a.
-1,5
• UWO Method I
•••
^ 4^
Method I.
"~ 1
« • •
« i
• I
• • * • • •
0
• • • •
1 • 0«^ 0.04 0,06 008 4 ,01 0.t2 0,jl4
• •
• • 4
•
• - • •
•
m
4
R o u g h n e s s L e n g t h (zg)
Method II.
241
• - ••
0.5
• • • •
••«• •
0 * ' * 4 •
1 005 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 03
-05
-1
5--16
n • Full scale Method 1
• UWO Methodl
• • CSU Method 1
-2
« • •• •
-2.5 •
•
•
• •
-3 •
-35
•
-4
Method I.
•
0.5
• • • • n
• • •
0 -t<^
" • •» X 4
(1 01 0.15 0.2 0.25 03
005
-0.5
-1
-1.5 • Full scale Method II

• •
•
-2 CSU Method II
• • •
•
• •
-2.5 •
•
• •
-3 •
•
-3.5
•
Figure E.3 8. Three Model Comparison of Area 1 under 90 Degree AOA by Using
Method II.
242
1,5
1
•
•• •
•
•
•
0.5
«» • • • * • t • •
0
1 a 05 0.1 015 0.2 0.25 03
-0.5
-1
• UWO Methodl
-1 5 n
CSU Method 1
• •
-2
• #1
•• •
• •
-2.5 •*-
• • "
• •
-3
-3.5
Method I.
•• • • • •ra •
• • •
•
II 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 03

a. • UWO Method II
o n •
• CSU Method II
•
•
•
• . • • •
-2.5 • n
•• • • •
•
•
Method II.
243
*
35
3
• •
?5
« • /g
*^ •
•
> • •
?
•
«r • Full scale Method 1
oa •
• • UWO Methodl
if CSU Method 1
1
1
•"•> >-*r • *i
015 0.2 025 , 03
-1 -
Method I.
4-
3.5 -
3 -
•
• \
^/k.
2,5 -
• - • *
•
2 - • ••
• •
• UWO Method II
CSU Method II
1
0,5
0
^ 0 05 • x ; 0,1 015 0,2 0.25 03
( «•<»•• •
-0,5
-1 Roughness Length (Zg)
Method II.
244
4
•
• • ••
3
- - -—
•
#1 •
• • •
a ,
. ._ • Full scale Method 1
• •
W. • *
• UWO Methodl
0
1 0.05 • |, 01 016
••» <• • 0.2 0.26 0 3
> •
• • •• ••
•
1 -
Method I.
• • •
4
• • •
•
•*J •
a • • • • Full Scale Method II
o
a • UWO Method II
1 "•• , ^ 0,05 016 02 0,26 03
*4 •
-li-
Method II.
245
2
• •
•
0 • \ • • : •
1 • 0.05 01 015 02 0.25 03
-2
•
-3
a • • •
O • Full scale Method 1
-4 •• •- • m
• • 4 • UWO Methodl
•
• 4
-5
••
-6 • •
-7 -
-8
•
-9 - i
- „ .1
Method I.
•
* • •
• •» '•
II -^^ *<a«5 0,1 015 02 025 03
o.
CJ • • •
•
• • •
•
• ••
^ •
• •
Method II.
246
•
-^y^f—^y
0,1
a
o • • • • Full scale Method I
I UWO Method I
Method I.
•*- •^•* *•• '

II 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,26 03
• UWO Method II
• •«•
: •• * '
•
— • — •• •
Method II.
247
APPENDIX F:
WERFL TAP DESIGNATIONS AND EXACT LOCATIONS
248
Tap Name Local SurfaceX Y Global X Global Y Global Z PlotX PiotY
11407 14 7 15,83 0 6.75 34 7
13004 30 4 0.25 0 3.88 18 4
13008 30 8 0.25 0 8.4 18 8
13013 30 13 0.25 0 12.58 18 13
12604 26 4 3.94 0 3.88 22 4
12608 26 8 3,94 0 8.4 22 8
12613 26 13 3.94 0 12.58 22 13
12304 23 4 7.61 0 3.88 25 4
12308 23 8 7.61 0 8.4 25 8
12313 23 13 7.61 0 12.58 25 13
11904 19 4 11.31 0 3.88 29 4
11908 19 8 11.31 0 8.4 29 8
11913 19 13 11.31 0 12.58 29 13
11504 15 4 15 0 3.88 33 4
11508 15 8 15 0 8.4 33 8
11513 15 13 15 0 12.58 33 13
11104 11 4 18.69 0 3.88 37 4
11108 11 8 18.69 0 8.4 37 8
11113 11 13 18.69 0 12.58 37 13
10804 8 4 22.37 0 3.88 40 4
10808 8 8 22.37 0 8.4 40 8
10813 8 13 22.37 0 12.58 40 13
10404 4 4 26.06 0 3.88 44 4
10408 4 8 26.06 0 8.4 44 8
10413 4 13 26.06 0 12.58 44 13
10004 0 4 29.75 0 3.88 48 4
10008 0 8 29.75 0 8.4 48 8
10013 0 13 29.75 0 12.58 48 13
22304 2 23 3 30 21.94 3.5 63 40
22306 2 23 6 30 21.94 6.42 60 40
22312 2 23 12 30 21.94 11.83 54 40
24504 2 45 4 30 0.31 3.88 62 18
24508 2 45 8 30 0.31 8.4 58 18
24513 2 45 13 30 0.31 12.58 53 18
24004 2 40 4 30 5.25 3.88 62 23
24008 2 40 8 30 5.25 8.4 58 23
24013 2 40 13 30 5.25 12.58 53 23
23504 2 35 4 30 10.19 3.88 62 28
23508 2 35 8 30 10.19 8.4 58 28
23513 2 35 13 30 10.19 12.58 53 28
23004 2 30 4 30 15.12 3.88 62 33
23008 2 30 8 30 15.12 8.4 58 33
23013 2 30 13 30 15.12 12.58 53 33
22504 2 25 4 30 20.06 3.88 62 38
2 25 8 30 20.06 8.4 58 38
22508
2 25 13 30 20.06 12.58 53 38
22513
2 20 4 30 24.94 3.88 62 43
22004
2 20 8 30 24.94 8.4 58 43
22008
249
Tap N a m e Local Surface X Y Global X Global Y Global Z PlotX PlotY
22013 2 20 13 30 24.94 12.58 53 43
21504 2 15 4 30 29.94 3.88 62 48
21508 2 15 8 30 29.94 8.4 58 48
21513 2 15 13 30 29,94 12.58 53 48
21004 2 10 4 30 34.88 3.88 62 53
21008 2 10 8 30 34.88 8.4 58 53
21013 2 10 13 30 34,88 12.58 53 53
20504 2 5 4 30 39.81 3.88 62 58
20508 2 5 8 30 39.81 8.4 58 58
20513 2 5 13 30 39.81 12.58 53 58
20004 2 0 4 30 44.975 3.88 62 63
20008 2 0 8 30 44.975 8.4 58 63
20013 2 0 13 30 44.975 12.58 53 63
30207 3 2 7 2.17 45 6.75 20 74
30210 3 2 10 2.17 45 9.75 20 71
30211 3 2 11 2.17 45 10.75 20 70
30212 3 2 12 2.17 45 11.75 20 69
30307 3 3 7 3.17 45 6.75 21 74
30310 3 3 10 3.17 45 9.75 21 71
30311 3 3 11 3.17 45 10.75 21 70
30407 3 4 7 4.17 45 6.75 22 74
30410 3 4 10 4.17 45 9.75 22 71
30411 3 4 11 4.17 45 10.75 22 70
30412 3 4 12 4.17 45 11.75 22 69
30607 3 6 7 6.17 45 6.75 24 74
30610 3 6 10 6.17 45 9.75 24 71
30611 3 6 11 6.17 45 10.75 24 70
30612 3 6 12 6.17 45 11.75 24 69
30807 3 8 7 8.17 45 6.75 26 74
30810 3 8 10 8.17 45 9.75 26 71
30811 3 8 11 8.17 45 10.75 26 70
30812 3 8 12 8.17 45 11.75 26 69
31407 3 14 7 14.17 45 6.75 32 74
31410 3 14 10 14.17 45 9.75 32 71
31411 3 14 11 14.17 45 10.75 32 70
31412 3 14 12 14.17 45 11.75 32 69
33004 3 30 4 29.75 45 3.88 48 77
33008 3 30 8 29.75 45 8.4 48 73
33013 3 30 13 29.75 45 12.58 48 68
32604 3 26 4 26.06 45 3.88 44 77
32608 3 26 8 26.06 45 8.4 44 73
32613 3 26 13 26.06 45 12.58 44 68
32304 3 23 4 22.39 45 3.88 41 77
32308 3 23 8 22.39 45 8.4 41 73
32313 3 23 13 22.39 45 12.58 41 68
31904 3 19 4 18.69 45 3.88 37 77
31908 3 19 8 18.69 45 8.4 37 73
31913 3 19 13 18.69 45 12.58 37 68
250
Tap Name Local Surface X Y Global X Global Y Global Z PlotX PlotY
31504 3 15 4 15 45 3.88 33 77
31508 3 15 8 15 45 8.4 33 73
31513 3 15 13 15 45 12.58 33 68
31104 3 11 4 11.31 45 3.88 29 77
31108 3 11 8 11.31 45 8.4 29 73
31113 3 11 13 11.31 45 12.58 29 68
30804 3 8 4 7.63 45 3.88 26 77
30808 3 8 8 7.63 45 8.4 26 73
30813 3 8 13 7.63 45 12.58 26 68
30404 3 4 4 3.94 45 3.88 22 77
30408 3 4 8 3.94 45 8.4 22 73
30413 3 4 13 3.94 45 12.58 22 68
30004 3 0 4 0.25 45 3.88 18 77
30008 3 0 8 0.25 45 8.4 18 73
30013 3 0 13 0.25 45 12.58 18 68
42204 4 22 4 0 22.17 3.5 4 40
42206V 4 22 6 0 22.17 6.42 6 40
42212 4 22 12 0 22.17 11.83 12 40
42306 4 23 6 0 23.17 6.42 6 41
43607 4 36 7 0 36.08 6.92 7 54
43610 4 36 10 0 36.08 9.92 10 54
43611 4 36 11 0 36.08 10.92 11 54
43612 4 36 12 0 36.08 11.83 12 54
43807 4 38 7 0 38.08 6.92 7 56
43810 4 38 10 0 38.08 9.92 10 56
43811 4 38 11 0 38.08 10.92 11 56
43812 4 38 12 0 38.08 11.83 12 56
44007 4 40 7 0 40.08 6.92 7 58
44010 4 40 10 0 40.08 9.92 10 58
44011 4 40 11 0 40.08 10.91 11 58
44012 4 40 12 0 40.08 11.83 12 58
44207 4 42 7 0 42.08 6.92 7 60
44210 4 42 10 0 42.08 9.92 10 60
44211 4 42 11 0 42.08 10.91 11 60
44212 4 42 12 0 42.08 11.83 12 60
44307 4 43 7 0 43.08 6.92 7 61
44310 4 43 10 0 43.08 9.92 10 61
44311 4 43 11 0 43.08 10.92 11 61
44312 4 43 12 0 43.08 11.83 12 61
44407 4 44 7 0 44.08 6.92 7 62
44410 4 44 10 0 44.08 9.92 10 62
44411 4 44 11 0 44.08 10.92 11 62
44412 4 44 12 0 44.08 11.83 12 62
44504 4 45 4 0 44.69 3.88 4 63
44508 4 45 8 0 44.69 8.4 8 63
44513 4 45 13 0 44.69 12.58 13 63
44004 4 40 4 0 39.75 3.88 4 58
251
Tap Name3 Local Surface X Y Global X Global Y Global Z PlotX PiotY
44008 A 4C S C 39.75 8.4 8 58
44013 A 4C 13 0 37.75 12.58 13 58
43504 A 35 4 0 34.81 3.88 4 53
43508 A 35 8 0 34.81 8.4 8 53
43513 35 13 0 34.81 12.58 13 53
43004 A 30 4 0 29.88 3.88 4 48
43008 4 30 8 0 29.88 8.4 8 48
43013 4 30 13 0 29.88 12.58 13 48
42504 4 25 4 0 24.94 3.88 4 43
42508 4 25 8 0 24.94 8.4 8 43
42513 4 25 13 0 24.94 12.58 13 43
42004 4 20 4 0 20.06 3.88 4 38
42008 4 20 8 0 20.06 8.4 8 38
42013 4 20 13 0 20.06 12.58 13 38
41504 4 15 4 0 15.06 3.88 4 33
41508 4 15 8 0 15.06 8.4 8 33
41513 4 15 13 0 15.06 12.58 13 33
41004 4 10 4 0 10.12 3.88 4 28
41008 4 10 8 0 10.12 8.4 8 28
41013 4 10 13 0 10.12 12.58 13 28
40504 4 5 4 0 5.19 3.88 4 23
40508 4 5 8 0 5.19 8.4 8 23
40513 4 5 13 0 5.19 12.58 13 23
40000 4 0 4 0 0.025 3.88 4 18
40008 4 0 8 0 0.025 8.4 8 18
40013 4 0 13 0 0.025 12.58 13 18
50101 5 1 1 1.17 43.83 13 19 62
50123 5 1 23 1 21.83 13 19 40
50202 5 2 2 1.67 42.83 13 20 61
50203 5 2 3 1.67 41.83 13 20 60
50205 5 2 5 1.5 39.83 13 20 58
50207 5 2 7 1.67 37.83 13 20 56
50209 5 2 9 1.83 35.83 13 20 54
50213 5 2 13 1.83 31.83 13 20 50
50218 5 2 18 1.83 26.83 13 20 45
50223 5 2 23 1.67 21.83 13 20 40
50401 5 4 1 3.67 43.83 13 22 62
50402 5 4 2 3.67 42.83 13 22 61
50403 5 4 3 3.67 41.83 13 22 60
50405 5 4 5 3.5 39.83 13 22 58
50407 5 4 7 3.58 37.83 13 22 56
50409 5 4 9 3.83 35.83 13 22 54
50501 5 5 1 4.67 43.83 13 23 62
50502 5 5 2 4.67 42.83 13 23 61
50503 5 5 3 4.67 41.83 13 23 60
50505 5 5 5 4.5 39.83 13 23 58
50507 5 5 7 4.58 37.83 13 23 56
252
Tap Name Local Surface X Y Global X Global Y Global Z PlotX PlotY
50509 5 5 9 4.83 35.83 13 23 54
50513 5 5 13 4.67 31.83 13 23 50
50518 5 5 18 4.67 26.83 13 23 45
50523 5 5 23 4.67 21.83 13 23 40
50701 5 7 1 6.67 43.83 13 25 62
50702 5 7 2 6.67 42.83 13 25 61
50703 5 7 3 6.75 41.83 13 25 60
50705 5 7 5 6.58 39.83 13 25 58
50707 5 7 7 6.58 37.83 13 25 56
50709 5 7 9 6.83 35.83 13 25 54
50823 5 8 23 7.58 21.83 13 26 40
50833 5 8 33 8.25 11.83 13 26 30
50900 5 9 0 8.67 44.5 13 27 63
50901 5 9 1 8.67 43.83 13 27 62
50902 5 9 2 8.67 42.83 13 27 61
50903 5 9 3 8.75 41.83 13 27 60
50904 5 9 4 8.67 40.83 13 27 59
50905 5 9 5 8.67 39.83 13 27 58
50907 5 9 7 8.83 37.83 13 27 56
50909 5 9 9 8.83 35.83 13 27 54
50913 5 9 13 8.67 31.83 13 27 50
50918 5 9 18 8.87 26.83 13 27 45
50923 5 9 23 8.67 21.83 13 27 40
50927 5 9 27 9.17 17.83 13 27 36
50944 5 9 44 9.17 0.83 13 27 19
51123 5 11 23 11.17 21.83 13 29 40
51138 5 11 38 11.17 6.83 13 29 25
51232 5 12 32 12.25 12.83 13 30 31
51423 5 14 23 14.08 21.83 13 32 40
51501 5 15 1 14.67 43.83 13 33 62
51502 5 15 2 14.67 42.83 13 33 61
51503 5 15 3 14.75 41.83 13 33 60
51505 5 15 5 14.75 39.83 13 33 58
51507 5 15 7 14.75 37.83 13 33 56
51509 5 15 9 14.75 35.83 13 33 54
52323 5 23 23 22.58 21.83 13 41 40
52923V 5 29 23 29.25 21.83 13 47 40
50000 5 0 0 0.29 44.46 13 18 63
50005 5 0 5 0.29 40.06 13 18 58
50010 5 0 10 0.29 35.12 13 18 53
50015 5 0 15 0.29 30.18 13 18 48
50020 5 0 20 0.29 25.24 13 18 43
50025 5 0 25 0.29 20.3 13 18 38
50030 5 0 30 0.29 15.36 13 18 33
50035 5 0 35 0.29 10.42 13 18 28
50040 5 0 40 0.29 5.48 13 18 23
50044 5 0 44 0.29 0.54 13 18 19
503001 5 3 0 2.79 44.46 13 21 63
253
50305 5 3 5 2.79 40.06 13 21 58
50310 5 3 10 2.79 35.12 13 21 53
50315 5 3 15 2.79 30.18 13 21 48
50320 5 3 20 2.79 25.24 13 21 43
50325 5 3 25 2.79 20.3 13 21 38
50330 5 3 30 2.79 15.36 13 21 33
50335 5 3 35 2.79 10.42 13 21 28
50340 5 3 40 2.79 0.54 13 21 23
50345 5 3 45 2.79 40.06 13 21 18
50500 5 5 0 5.29 44.46 13 23 63
50505 5 5 5 5.29 35.12 13 23 58
50510 5 5 10 5.29 30.18 13 23 53
50515 5 5 15 5.29 25.24 13 23 48
50520 5 5 20 5.29 20.3 13 23 43
50525 5 5 25 5.29 15.36 13 23 38
50530 5 5 30 5.29 10.42 13 23 33
50535 5 5 35 5.29 5.48 13 23 28
50540 5 5 40 5.29 0.54 13 23 23
50545 5 5 45 5.29 0.54 13 23 18
51000 5 10 0 10.29 44.46 13 28 63
51005 5 10 5 10.29 40.06 13 28 58
51010 5 10 10 10.29 35.12 13 28 53
51015 5 10 15 10.29 30.18 13 28 48
51020 5 10 20 10.29 25.24 13 28 43
51025 5 10 25 10.29 20.3 13 28 38
51030 5 10 30 10.29 15.36 13 28 33
51035 5 10 35 10.29 10.42 13 28 28
51040 5 10 40 10.29 5.48 13 28 23
51045 5 10 45 10.29 0.54 13 28 18
51500 5 15 0 15.29 44.46 13 33 63
51505 5 15 5 15.29 40.06 13 33 58
51510 5 15 10 15.29 35.12 13 33 53
51515 5 15 15 15.29 30.18 13 33 48
51520 5 15 20 15.29 25.24 13 33 43
51525 5 15 25 15.29 20.3 13 33 38
51530 5 15 30 15.29 15.36 13 33 33
51535 5 15 35 15.29 10.42 13 33 28
51540 5 15 40 15.29 5.48 13 33 23
51545 5 15 45 15.29 0.54 13 33 18
52000 5 20 0 20.29 44.46 13 38 63
52005 5 20 5 20.29 40.06 13 38 58
52010 5 20 10 20.29 35.12 13 38 53
52015 5 20 15 20.29 30.18 13 38 48
52020 5 20 20 20.29 25.24 13 38 43
52025 5 20 25 20.29 20.3 13 38 38
52030 5 20 30 20.29 15.36 13 38 33
52035 5 20 35 20.29 10.42 13 38 28
52040 5 20 40 20.29 5.48 13 38 23
254
52045 5 20 45 20.29 0.54 13 38 18
52500 5 25 0 25.29 44.46 13 43 63
52505 5 25 5 25.29 40.06 13 43 58
52510 5 25 10 25.29 35.12 13 43 53
52515 5 25 15 25.29 30.18 13 43 48
52520 5 25 20 25.29 25.24 13 43 43
52525 5 25 25 25.29 20.3 13 43 38
52530 5 25 30 25.29 15.36 13 43 33
52535 5 25 35 25.29 10.42 13 43 28
52540 5 25 40 25.29 5.48 13 43 23
52545 5 25 45 25.29 0.54 13 43 18
52800 5 28 0 27.79 44.46 13 46 63
52805 5 28 5 27.79 40.06 13 46 58
52810 5 28 10 27.79 35.12 13 46 53
52815 5 28 15 27.79 30.18 13 46 48
52820 5 28 20 27.79 25.24 13 46 43
52825 5 28 25 27.79 20.3 13 46 38
52830 5 28 30 27.79 15.36 13 46 33
52835 5 28 35 27.79 10.42 13 46 28
52840 5 28 40 27.79 5.48 13 46 23
52845 5 28 45 27.79 0.54 13 46 18
53000 5 30 0 29.71 44.46 13 48 63
53005 5 30 5 29.71 40.06 13 48 58
53010 5 30 10 29.71 35.12 13 48 53
53015 5 30 15 29.71 30.18 13 48 48
53020 5 30 20 29.71 25.24 13 48 43
53025 5 30 25 29.71 20.3 13 48 38
53030 5 30 30 29.71 15.36 13 48 33
53035 5 30 35 29.71 10.42 13 48 28
53040 5 30 40 29.71 5.48 13 48 23
53045 5 30 45 29.71 0.54 13 48 18
255
APPENDIX G:
TURBULENCE INTENSITY AND VELOCITY PROFILES
FOR CSU, UWO, TTU WIND TUNNEL MODELS
AND WERFL FULL SCALE DATA
256
Table G.l TTU 1:100 90 Percentile data
(Grid + 7inch fence + 17.5ft board roughness)
Z(ft) Z(ft) vel VAV(a),33i TI
0.01641 1.6405 6.25 0.71266 0.252
0.03281 3.281 6.44 0.73432 0.251
0.04922 4.9215 6.4 0.72976 0.251
0.06562 6.562 6.61 0.75371 0.253
0.09843 9.843 6.93 0.79019 0.262
0.13124 13.124 7.23 0.8244 0.261
0.19686 19.686 7.56 0.86203 0.252
0.26248 26.248 8.1 0.9236 0.238
0.3281 32.81 8.77 1 0.216
0.49215 49.215 9.64 1.0992 0.206
0.6562 65.62 10.07 1.14823 0.182
0.82025 82.025 11.05 1.25998 0.149
0.9843 98.43 11.6 1.32269 0.133
1.3124 131.24 12.15 1.3854 0.113
1.6405 164.05 12.66 1.44356 0.095
1.9686 196.86 13.14 1.49829 0.087
2.2967 229.67 13.54 1.5439 0.079
2.6248 262.48 13.64 1.5553 0.074
2.9529 295.29 13.62 1.55302 0.071
3.21538 321.538 13.2 1.50513 0.072
Table G.2 TTU 1:100 10 Percentile data

(Grid + 7inch fence)
Z(mm) Z(m) vel NIW(a)33i TI
0.01641 1.6405 8 0.85653 0.163
0.03281 3.281 7.98 0.85439 0.168
0.04922 4.9215 8.02 0.85867 0.168
0.06562 6.562 8.11 0.86831 0.173
0.09843 9.843 8.2 0.87794 0.169
0.13124 13.124 8.41 0.90043 0.16
0.19686 19.686 8.75 0.93683 0.163
0.26248 26.248 8.85 0.94754 0.162
0.3281 32.81 9.34 1 0.154
0.49215 49.215 10 1.07066 0.136
0.6562 65.62 10.42 1.11563 0.128
0.82025 82.025 10.79 1.15525 0.124
257
0.9843 98.43 11.08 1.1863 0.115
1.3124 131.24 11.69 1.25161 0.105
1.6405 164.05 12.1 1.2955 0.1
1.9686 196.86 12.56 1.34475 0.097
2.2967 229.67 12.83 1.37366 0.09
2.6248 262.48 13.04 1.39615 0.086
2.9529 295.29 13.07 1.39936 0.079
3.21538 321.538 12.87 1.37794 0.076
Table G.3 U W O 1:100 90 Percentile data

Z(ft) Z(ft) vel vrvm3i TI
0.04167 4.16687 0.4 0.70796 0.26
0.08334 8.33374 0.44 0.77876 0.26
0.16011 16.0113 0.5 0.88496 0.24
0.24017 24.0169 0.54 0.95575 0.22
0.3199 31.9898 0.56 0.99115 0.23
0.39995 39.9954 0.58 1.02655 0.23
0.52004 52.0039 0.61 1.07965 0.22
0.64012 64.0123 0.64 1.13274 0.21
0.75988 75.988 0.65 1.15044 0.2
0.87504 87.5043 0.67 1.18584 0.19
1.00005 100.005 0.69 1.22124 0.19
1.3334 133.34 0.71 1.25664 0.19
1.60014 160.014 0.73 1.29204 0.18
1.66675 166.675 0.75 1.32743 0.17
2.16677 216.677 0.8 1.41593 0.16
2.6668 266.68 0.84 1.48673 0.16
3.04182 304.182 0.87 1.53982 0.14
3.04182 304.182 0.87 1.53982 0.14
3.04182 304.182 0.86 1.52212 0.14
3.08348 308.348 0.87 1.53982 0.14
3.16026 316.026 0.88 1.55752 0.13
3.24032 324.032 0.89 1.57522 0.14
Table G.4 UWO 1:100 10 Percentile data

Z(ft) z(ft) vel VA^@33f|TI
0.04167 4.16687 0.51 0.69863 0.21
258
0.08334 8.33374 0.58 0.79452 0.19
0.16011 16.0113 0.67 0.91781 0.16
0.24017 24.0169 0.71 0.9726 0.15
0.3199 31.9898 0.73 1 0.14
0.39995 39.9954 0.73 1 0.14
0.52004 52.0039 0.77 1.05479 0.13
0.64012 64.0123 0.77 1.05479 0.13
0.75988 75.988 0.78 1.06849 0.13
0.87504 87.5043 0.78 1.06849 0.13
1.00005 100.005 0.8 1.09589 0.13
1.3334 133.34 0.82 1.12329 0.13
1.60014 160.014 0.84 1.15068 0.13
1.66675 166.675 0.85 1.16438 0.13
2.16677 216.677 0.87 1.19178 0.12
2.6668 266.68 0.9 1.23288 0.12
3.04182 304.182 0.92 1.26027 0.11
3.04182 304.182 0.92 1.26027 0.1
Table G.5 C S U 1:100 90 Percentile data

Z(ft) Z(ft) vel VA^(S),33f TI
0.02986 2.98571 17.79 0.6526 0.233
0.07513 7.51349 20.71 0.75972 0.234
0.13091 13.0912 22.33 0.81915 0.227
0.32679 32.6788 27.26 1 0.195
0.70246 70.2462 31.13 1.14197 0.166
1.14671 114.671 32.61 1.19626 0.154
1.60244 160.244 34.87 1.27916 0.162
1.99682 199.682 36.07 1.32318 0.148
2.49586 249.586 38.07 1.39655 0.126
3.00507 300.507 39.4 1.44534 0.11
Table G.6 CSU 1:100 10 Percentile data

Z(ft) vel VAA(a).33f TI
Z(ft)
2.98571 19.58 0.70029 0.188
0.02986
7.90721 23.55 0.84227 0.165
0.07907
12.6647 25.35 0.90665 0.145
0.12665
33.2365 27.96 1^ 0.142
0.33237
69.6556 30.66 1.09657 0.121
0.69656
100.497 31.59 1.12983 0.128
1.00497
259
1.1559 115.59 31.38 1.12232 0.122
1.41181 141.181 32.69 1.16917 0.12
1.59752 159.752 33.59 1.20136 0.124
1.99419 199.419 34.11 1.21996 0.12
2.50504 250.504 35.62 1.27396 0.117
3.00113 300.113 36.99 1.32296 0.112
Table G.7 Boundary Layer Simulation based upon Empirical relations for full-scale
z(ft) Z(ni) TI% 10th 90th V/V 10th 90th
Pencentile Pencentih @33ft Pencentile Pencentile
TI TI v/v@3: VA^fa).33fi
3 0.91 0.22 0.2 0.26 0.68 0.73 0.64
8 2.44 0.21 0.18 0.24 0.8 0.83 0.77
13 3.96 0.2 0.17 0.23 0.86 0.88 0.84
33 10.06 0.18 0.15 0.21 1 1 1
70 21.34 0.17 0.14 0.2 1.13 1.11 1.16
160 48.77 0.15 0.12 0.19 1.29 1.24 1.35
260
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's
degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I
agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for
research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be
granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It is imderstood that any
copying or publication of this thesis for fmancial gain shall not be allowed without my
further written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
Student Signature Date
Disagree (Permission is not granted.)
Smdent Signamre Date

31295019407617

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

31295019407617

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNCERTAINTIES IN PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

DERIVED FROM FULL AND MODEL SCALE DATA

FEI LONG, B.S.

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

Ch&irperson of the Committee

Dean of the Graduate School

I would like to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Douglas A. Smith, chairman of

LIST OF TABLES VIU

1.2 Objective and Scope 2

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Formulation of Wind Loads Incorporating Uncertainties 4

2.2 Previous Research on Comparison of Full and Model Scale data 5

2.3 Esthnation of Mean Extreme Pressure Coefficients 7

2.3.1 The Introduction to Method I 8

2.3.2 The Introduction to Method II 13

2.3.3 The Introduction to the Probability Function 17

2.3.4 The Introduction to the Roughness Length Calculation 22

III. TEST FACILITIES AND TARGET FLOW SIMULATION DATA

3.1 The Full Scale Facility 25

3.1.1 Meteorological Tower 26

3.1.2 Terrain and Site Characteristics 27

3.1.4 Data Acquisition System 35

3.2 UWO and CSU Wind Tunnel Models 35

3.3 Wind Tunnel Test Facilities and Flow Simulations 40

3.3.1 UWO Test Facilhy & Flow Simulation 40

3.3.2 TTU Test Facility & Flow simulation 42

3.3.3 CSU Test Facility & Flow Simulation 45

IV. THE UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH WIND TUNNEL

4.1 Uncertainties Associated With Repeatability 49

4.2 Uncertainties Associated with Model Building 59

4.2.1 The Comparison of Mean, Standard deviation, Maximum

and Minimum Pressure Coefficients between Two Models 60

4.3 Uncertainties Associated with Wind Tunnel Facilities 68

4.4 Uncertainties Associated with Estimation Techniques for The

4.4.2 The Detailed Comparison for CSU Model 80

4.5 The Combined Uncertainties of Model-Building and Estimate

4.6 Total Uncertainties Associated with Wind-Tunnel Testing 87

V. THE UNCERTAINTIES DERIVED FROM FULL SCALE AND WIND

5.1 Uncertainties in Mean, Standard Deviation, Maximum and Minhnum

5.2.1 The Comparison of Individual Tap Estimated Mean Extreme

5.2.2 The Comparison Based on the Moving Averaged

Time Series 100

5.2.3 The Comparison Based on 20 Independent Full Scale Runs 106

5.2.4 Comparison Based on the Area Averaged Time Series 107

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 112

6.1.1 Uncertainties Associated with Wind Tunnel Pressure

6.1.2 Uncertainties Derived from Full-scale and Wind Tunnel

6.2 Recommendations for Further Research 115

B. Comparison Graphs and Best-Fit Probability Distributions to Build

G. Wind Tunnel and WERFL Flow Simulation Data 256

extreme pressure coefficients.

time series were used to establish the uncertainties.

The best-fit (Palisade Corporation, 1993) program is used to obtain best-fit

of Model-Building and Estimation Techniques 48

4.6 The Statistic for Original-Repeat Run Error Term 58

4.7 TheDefmitionof Parameters for Probability Density Functions 59

4.8 Coordinate Difference for 29 Selected Taps 60

4.9 The Statistic for UWO-CSU Model Error Term 67

4.10 The Statistic for UWO-TTU Error Term 73

4.11 The Statistic for TTU-CSU Error Term 74

4.12 The Statistic for CSU-UWO Error Term 74

4.13 The Statistic for UWO-CSU-TTU Error Term 75

4.14 The Statistic for Observed-Method 1 Error Term 79

4.15 The Statistic for Observed-Method 2 Error Term 79