Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104240

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia

Wind loading on tall buildings: Review of Indian Standards and

recommended amendments
K. Suresh Kumar
RWDI, KINFRA Film & Video Park, Sainik School PO, Trivandrum, 695585, India

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

Keywords: The new Indian wind loading standard (IS 875 (Part 3), 2015) was brought out after a gap of 28 years. There are
Indian standard several changes especially on the front of calculating wind loading on tall buildings. Among them, one of the
IS875 noticeable changes is by bringing the equations to calculate along wind gust factors replacing the complex figures
Tall buildings
from the earlier version of the IS875. Further, the new IS875 instigated across wind provisions for the first time.
Wind loading
Wind tunnel
The earlier versions of the Australian wind loading standard (AS 1170.2, 1989; AS/NZS 1170.2, 2011) were the
basis for most of these changes. This paper critically reviews each one of these new updates and reminds the users
of the IS875 about potential issues of adopting the current standard as published for determining local pressures
on facades as well as overall wind loading on tall buildings. Several amendments are recommended.

1. Introduction recommended amendments for the next revision of the IS875.

Bureau of Indian Standards brought out the third revision of the In-
dian wind loading standard (IS875) after a gap of 28 years. There are
many updates specifically about the wind loading on tall buildings. Some
of the key changes are including roughness heights for each terrain cat-
egories, removing structure size classification, re-defining k2 factors as
terrain roughness and height factor, introducing cyclonic factor (k4),
bringing empirical expressions to calculate vertical variations of the
mean speed and turbulent intensity in different terrains, bringing wind
directionality provision, introducing area averaging and correlation of
pressures, instigating guidelines to account for wind-induced interfer-
ence, applying equations to evaluate along wind gust factor, and intro-
ducing the method for computing across wind response. It is clear from
this review that the current IS875 adopts most of these provisions from
the earlier versions of the Australian wind loading standards (AS1170.2).
Earlier papers (Suresh Kumar, 2011, 2015) critically reviewed the pro-
visions for calculating wind loads on tall buildings in the 1987 version of
the IS875; where, the author expressed concerns on the local pressure
coefficient used for façade pressure calculations, as well as force coeffi-
cient used for the overall structural load calculations on rectangular
buildings. However, the new version of IS875 does not address these
important issues.
This paper focuses on addressing the users of the new IS875 on the
following two important aspects: (1) details of the new updates and their
application, and (2) potential issues with certain provisions and
2. Discussion on key changes
2.1. Terrain roughness and height factor (k2 factor)
In the 1987 version of the IS875, the k2 factor represented terrain,
height, and structure size factor. The new version of the IS875 removed
the previous size classification of structure (B and C) and renamed the k2
as terrain roughness and height factor corresponding to the previous class
A type structure only. Fig. 1 compares the k2 factors, as well as turbulence
intensities for all terrain categories between 1987 and 2015 versions of
the IS875 and the 2011 version of the AS1170.2. While comparing the k2
factors between standards, the new k2 factors corresponding to 2015
version of the IS875 (IS 2015) are constant and identical above 300 m for
both terrain categories 1 & 2, while old k2 factors corresponding to
terrain categories 1 & 2 increase for the height above 300 m. This in-
dicates that the corresponding boundary layer is fully developed at 300 m
for exposed terrains such as terrain categories 1 & 2 in the latest IS875.
The updated standard provides the equivalent aerodynamic roughness
coefficient for each terrain category, and this is the same as in the 2011
version of AS1170.2 (AS 2011). However, there are subtle differences in
vertical variation of the gust wind speed especially closer to the ground.
Corresponding to terrain category 1, the IS875 values are lower than
those of the AS1170.2, while the IS875 values are higher than the
AS1170.2 values for terrain categories 3 and 4. There is also a serious

E-mail addresses: suresh.kumar@rwdi.com, suresh.kumar@rwdi.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2020.104240
Received 16 September 2019; Received in revised form 10 May 2020; Accepted 10 May 2020
Available online 25 July 2020
0167-6105/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K.S. Kumar
Fig. 1. Comparison of gust wind profile and turbulence intensity.
anomaly with the k2 factors corresponding to terrain category 4 as the
values are identical to terrain category 3 above 50 m. Based on these
observations, when using the new IS875, the estimated wind-induced
reference pressure at various elevations is lower in terrain category 1;
in contrary, the reference pressure at various elevations is higher in
terrain categories 3 and 4 in comparison to the AS1170.2 derived values.
However, the turbulence intensities are relatively close between the
standards. These observations will have an impact on the estimated loads
on buildings using the 2015 version of the IS875, hence the users must
take proper precaution by comparing with other international standards.
It is recommended that the IS875 addresses this topic in the next revision.
2.2. Importance factor for the cyclonic region (k4 factor)
Based on the earlier assessments of cyclonic wind speed and associ-
ated damages to structures, the IS875 committee believes the wind
speeds provided in basic wind speed map for the east coast and Gujarat
coast regions are often exceeded during cyclones. To ensure better safety
of the structures in these coastal regions, the new IS875 instigated the k4
factors shown in Table 1 according to the structure’s importance. This
new factor elevates the wind loads on industrial structures and structures
of post-cyclonic importance in the coastal regions by at least 32% and
69% respectively; while, the loads on all the normal structures, which
includes tall residential buildings, remain the same.
Based on the detailed Monte Carlo simulation of cyclones for 100,000
simulated years in the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea, the wind speed
predictions made by Applied Research Associate in Rayleigh, USA are
lower than the speeds for the coastal regions provided in the basic wind
Table 1
Importance factor for cyclonic region (k4).
Type
Structures of post-cyclone importance for emergency services (such as cyclone
shelters, hospitals, schools, communication towers etc.)
Industrial structures
All other structures
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104240
speed map in the IS875 (Suresh Kumar, 2019). There are several
anomalies about the wind speed reported in certain strong cyclones
landfall on Indian coasts regarding the averaging time, location, and
height of the speed measurements. Further, one cannot decide the wind
speed based on a few strong cyclones alone without assessing the risk of
occurrence accurately. Traditionally, high wind speeds are blamed for all
wind-induced damages. Many times, other factors like inadequate
design, poor workmanship, and lack of maintenance are causing the
damages. For Kolkata, a wind climate model was created based upon
local surface wind measurements taken at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
International Airport and a Monte Carlo simulation of 100,000 years of
tropical cyclones. Fig. 2 shows the 3-sec gust wind speeds from each data
set as a function of the return period. It is clear from the plot that the
extra-tropical winds dictates the common events at lower return periods;
while at longer return periods, the cyclones generate the most significant
wind speeds for strength design. The predicted wind speed for Kolkata is
lower than the speed in the IS875 for the 50-year return period.
Considering the potential for higher wind speeds during cyclones in
the Indian continent which resulted in k4 factor for industrial and post-
disaster structures, it is perplexing to see how one can avoid normal
structures from the speed increase. When the wind speed increase is
scientifically proven, instead of bringing another factor into the wind
load calculation, updating the wind speed map is ideal. Such revision of
wind speed map leads to the universal application of the wind speed for
the design of all structures. In other international standards such as ASCE
7–16 (ASCE7), generally, the loads for post-cyclone importance struc-
tures/industrial structures are only about 15–20% (corresponding to
100-year return period) higher, while the current Indian wind loading
standard seems to overpredict the loads appreciably.
Based on this review, it is understood that the basic wind speed in the
current IS875 is adequate for the design of any type of structure in the
coastal region without the k4 factor. This topic needs attention in the next
k4 revision of the standard. Further, there are growing concerns on basic
wind speed even in other non-cyclonic regions of India like Mumbai,
1.3
where the current speed in the standard seems very high than reality.
1.15 This is affecting the economy of construction activities (Suresh Kumar
1.0 et al., 2012). It is essential to execute further detailed studies of wind
2
K.S. Kumar
Fig. 2. Wind speed versus mean recurrence interval – Kolkata.
speeds in the Indian continent with the help of Cyclone simulations and
Mesoscale modeling techniques. Based on the outcome of these studies, it
is recommended to update the wind speed map in the next revision of the
standard.
2.3. Wind directionality factor (Kd)
All wind loading standards including IS875 and AS1170.2 recom-
mend basic wind speeds corresponding to specific return periods. These
wind speeds are the largest value irrespective of the wind directions on
any site. However, it is worth noting that such wind speed value from
standards for a given site does not occur with equal probability of ex-
ceedance from all wind directions. But in reality, corresponding to the
same probability of exceedance (¼1/return period), the wind speed
values seem directionally dependent and different for all sites. Addi-
tionally, the non-dimensional responses of buildings are also dependent
on the wind direction. When combining the non-dimensional building
responses with the wind climate of the site, the misalignment of aero-
dynamically and climatically important wind directions can lead to re-
ductions in predicted loads/responses. The wind directionality factor
accounts for this effect. In the current IS875, the wind directionality
factor of 0.9 is recommended only for structural load calculations. This
blanket factor approach is like the approach taken by ASCE7 long before.
2.4. Area averaging factor (Ka)
Area averaging factors as shown in Table 2, similar to the AS1170.2,
account for pressure correlations on large surface area. As the wind
exposed surface area becomes larger, the spatial correlation of the peak
pressure decreases and vice-versa. This factor is applicable only while
calculating loads on frames or individual elements with the tributary
area. For instance, the load calculations on roofs and individual walls
Table 2
Area averaging factor (Ka).
Tributary Area (m2) Area Averaging Factor (Ka)
10 1.0
25 0.9
100 0.8
*Linear interpolation for intermediate values of tributary area is
permitted.
3
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104240
shall apply this factor. This factor should not be used while calculating
structural loads on tall buildings.
2.5. Combination factor (Kc)
This recommendation is too condensed compared to the discussion in
the AS1170.2. This factor is primarily introduced in the AS1170.2 to
account for the lack of correlation of wind-induced forces between
multiple external surfaces or external and internal surfaces (windward &
leeward walls or walls with roof etc) inducing structural action effects
(shear forces, bending moments, etc). However, the IS875 proposed Kc ¼
0.9 when combining external pressures with internal pressures on roofs
or walls. The along wind loading calculations on tall buildings can apply
this factor, which is clear in the AS1170.2 though IS875 is silent on this.
This shall be addressed in the next revision of IS875.
2.6. Interference factor (IF)
The newly introduced interference factor accounts for the load in-
crease on the concerned building caused by an upstream building of the
same or more height. The IS875 is recommending load increase between
7% and 35% depending on the interfering building’s location. The con-
cerned building may encounter the vortices and buffeting from the up-
stream building in the form of wake interference. This phenomenon is
quite complex due to the various parameters involved such as the di-
mensions of both buildings, the spacing between them, the wind climate
parameters, etc. In reality, seldom two tall building interference cases is
present. Due to urbanization, a cluster of tall buildings/complex building
shapes/patterns are either existing or upcoming, and hence generaliza-
tion of this theory is a daunting task. An earlier version of the AS1170.2
included this provision, but now removed due to complexity and moved
this section to the wind loading handbook (background to the standard)
as preliminary advice. The wind tunnel study is the only solution to find
out the realistic wind interference among buildings. Hence, the users
shall treat this section as preliminary advice only, and the same shall be
updated in the next revision of IS875.
3. Façade wind loads
The information available to obtain façade loading on tall buildings
based on the updated standard still remains very limited to a single
K.S. Kumar
negative Cp value based on Table 5 in 2015 version of the IS875. The
local Cp in the IS875 ranges between 0.8 and 1.25 and a single value
is selected for local load calculations based on the building height and
plan aspect ratios. In a detailed study earlier (Suresh Kumar, 2011,
2015), it is proven that the peak negative Cp value provided in the
standard underestimates the pressures at the edges of the buildings. Also,
the study recommended an increase in the Cp value at the edges. Further,
a range of Cp value would have been better to cover the middle of the
façade to the edge of the façade considering the pressure gradients on the
facade. The IS875 is also silent on the positive Cp value.
Detailed façade pressure studies on standard CAARC building have
been carried out. The details of the experimental setup and local load
results are provided in the following sections.
3.1. Experimental setup
The data presented here were collected from wind tunnel studies of
the standard CAARC tall building model using pressure measurements at
several locations. The CAARC is a simple rectangular box type building
without any architectural features/geometric disturbances such as par-
apets, balconies, fins, mullions, etc. These tests were conducted on a
1:400 scale model of the building without immediate surroundings, as
shown in Fig. 3, in RWDI’s 2.4 m  2.0 m boundary-layer wind tunnel. A
rural upwind terrain condition (zo ¼ 0.1 m, corresponding approximately
to a power-law exponent of 0.17) was simulated for all wind directions
using floor roughness and upwind spires.
For the pressure tests, the building was instrumented with 280
pressure taps, including the standard CAARC locations, plus additional
taps near the building edges. Time series of the pressures at these loca-
tions were collected and stored for post-test analysis. The individual
pressure time series were used to derive local pressure statistics.
Fig. 3 provides the pressure tap locations, along with the overall
equivalent full-scale dimensions (height ¼ 182.88m), axes system, and
wind flow angle. The wind tunnel tests were conducted for 36 wind di-
rections at 10 intervals. Traditional flow measurement details such as
velocity spectra and pressure tubing response have been confirmed
periodically to ascertain the proper flow simulation and pressure mea-
surements (Peter Irwin, 1987).
The mean, root-mean-square, peak maximum and peak minimum
Fig. 3. CAARC building model in wind tunnel - pressure tap locations.
4
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104240
values of the pressure signals were measured for all wind directions. Note
that peak local pressure values correspond to an averaging time of about
1-sec. All pressure measurements were carried out with a free stream
wind velocity of approximately 15 m/s.
3.2. Local loads
To bring the wind tunnel results in a similar format with the IS875
and ASCE7 standards, the wind tunnel results have been converted to
pressure coefficients based on peak dynamic pressure at the roof height.
Fig. 4 shows these results for selected elevations at corresponding tap
locations for negative and positive pressures. The provided pressure co-
efficients in Fig. 4 are peak negative and peak positive pressure co-
efficients at individual tap locations irrespective of the wind direction.
Negative pressure coefficients intensify at the edges and moderate at
the center as expected from the typical flow regime. However, in the case
of positive pressure coefficients, they seem to increase along with the
height except for the extreme top region where they reduce as the flow
tries to escape. Along with the wind tunnel results, the pressure co-
efficients from ASCE7-16 (ASCE), NBC 2010 (NBC), and IS875 (IS) are
also provided at the top. Note that equivalent NBC pressure coefficients
in the same format as those with ASCE7 and IS875 have been derived and
presented in this plot.
Concerning negative pressure coefficients, the IS875 value is 1.2
and this standard does not distinguish between edge and center zones.
This coefficient is lower than the edge zone pressure coefficients ob-
tained from wind tunnel results. Also, ASCE7 and NBC standards offer
higher values as well for edge zones. However, IS875 and NBC values for
the center zone seem closer to wind tunnel predictions. Note that certain
variations in pressure coefficients point to the conversions from one
format to the other. Overall, we can infer that the IS875 significantly
underestimates loads on claddings located especially on the edges. Also,
it seems that some of the local pressure coefficient data on the standard
could have been obtained under uniform flow conditions and this may be
the reason for a lower value. Concerning positive pressure coefficients,
the wind tunnel results are in good match with ASCE7 and NBC values,
while the IS875 is not providing any value.
Table 3 compares local cladding pressures estimated using wind
tunnel, IS875 as well as ASCE7 for five different buildings in India. These
K.S. Kumar
Fig. 4. Peak pressure coefficients on CAARC building facades.
values are external pressures only without internal pressure, but
including wind directionality. One can easily notice the reduced value of
the negative pressures predicted by IS875. On the other hand, the pres-
sures predicted by the wind tunnel as well as ASCE7 are similar.
The results show that concerning the cladding loads predicted by
IS875, the pressure values on edges (peak local suction pressures) stand
lower than the tunnel tested and ASCE7 values. Therefore, IS875
5
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104240
predictions for cladding design should be used with caution and it is
strongly recommended to look at other international standards at the
preliminary design stage. It is recommended that the local Cp values in
Table 5 of the IS875 are updated in the next revision.
Based on past research (Suresh Kumar, 2011, 2015) and many wind
tunnel tests carried out on buildings of simple shapes and heights, Table 4
recommends a set of local pressure coefficients which can be
K.S. Kumar Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104240

Table 3 updated standard has replaced the figures with equations based on
Comparison of façade pressures on few typical buildings. AS1170.2 and mean hourly speed. This seems very efficient and the
Height Plan WT Range IS875 ASCE calculations are not subjective anymore. Essentially, the along wind loads
(m) (kPa) (kPa) 7–16 seem matching with the values based on AS1170.2 most of the time
(kPa) unless there is a difference in the force coefficient prediction based on the
Building 260.6 1.75 to 2.23 2.0 to IS875. Fig. 5 shows a comparison of along wind load for a rectangular
1 3.75 3.75 office building A1. The loads are similar between IS875 and both ver-
2.25 to þ2.0 sions of AS1170.2 as most of the IS875 gust factor equations and asso-
3.0
(Majority)
ciated parameters are similar to the AS1170.2. The peak non-directional
þ1.25 to wind tunnel results are also provided in Fig. 5 and in this case, the along
þ2.25 wind loads dominates considering the short and bulky nature of the
þ1.75 to building. However, the wind tunnel derived loads are somewhat lower
þ2.0
than standard estimated along wind loads due to the sheltering effect of
(Majority)
Building 265.3 1.75 to 2.36 2.0 to the adjacent building.
2 4.0 3.75 The force coefficient (Cf, drag coefficient) provided in the IS875 for
1.75 to þ2.0 rectangular clad buildings requires change as this value seems too high
3.0 compared to other international standards, especially when a/b (depth/
(Majority)
þ1.25 to
breadth) is less than 2, and h/b (height/breadth) is more than 3. Table 5
þ2.5 compares the drag coefficient between the IS875 with the AS1170.2 and
þ1.75 to ASCE7. Note that IS875 values are too high and the force coefficients
þ2.0 similar to other international standards seem justifiable based on many
(Majority)
wind tunnel tests and other technical literature.
Building 193.5 2.25 to 2.25
3 3.75 2.74 to Both AS1170.2 and ASCE7 combine external Cp’s from windward and
2.75 to 4.75 leeward sides to obtain drag coefficient. In both cases, the reference
3.0 þ2.25 pressure is varying for the windward wall, while the leeward wall uses
(Majority) the reference pressure at roof height. In IS875, the dynamic pressure is
þ1.5 to
varying as per elevation similar to other standards, but the calculation
þ3.0
þ2.25 uses a single force coefficient which is a combined windward and
(Majority) leeward pressure coefficients. This can produce a slightly high Cf values
Building 232.7 1.75 to 2.17 2.0 to in IS875, but not to the level shown in the standard. Further, the provided
4 3.75 3.75
Cf values correspond to the uniform flow scenario where in practice,
1.75 to þ2.0
2.5 boundary layer flow prevails. It is recommended that the force coefficient
(Majority) for rectangular clad building in Figure 4 of the IS875 is updated in the
þ1.25 to next revision.
þ2.75
þ1.75 to
þ2.0
4.2. Across wind loads
(Majority)
For the first time, the IS875 brought up the across wind provisions
based on the AS1170.2. The equations are jumbled between the 1989 and
2011 versions of the AS1170.2, though the across wind force spectrum
Table 4
Local external pressure coefficients (Cpe) for walls of rectangular clad buildings. coefficient (Cfs) plots are based on the 1989 version of the AS1170.2.
Note that the Cfs curves corresponding to square prisms in the IS875 have
Local Cpe
shifted to the left compared to the same in 1989 version of AS1170.2.
Positiveb Negative This is clear from the comparison of the cross wind force spectrum co-
Central Edge efficient between the IS875 and the AS1170.2 shown in Fig. 6. This re-
Zonec Zoned quires amendment and now the existing curve is producing very high
For all building height ratio and þ0.8 to 0.8 to 1.2 to loads which is a pressing concern in the industry. Fig. 7 shows the photos
building plan ratioa þ1.25 1.25 1.8 of a wind tunnel study on a square tower. The same figure also provides a
Notes. comparison between the wind tunnel results and the loads (both along
a
Refer Table 5 of IS 875 (Part 3): 2015 for various building height and plan wind and across wind) derived using the IS875 and the AS1170.2.
ratio. Note that along wind loads are quite similar between the standards.
b However, the across wind loads based on the IS875 are too high
Positive value is constant throughout the height and breadth of the building.
c
Central zone is the zone of the façade excluding the edge zone. compared to the loads derived based on the AS1170.2. Both versions of
d
Edge zone of the façade is 10% of the least horizontal dimension or 1m the AS1170.2 provide similar results. The shifting of the Cfs curves in the
whichever is less from the edge along the height of the building. IS875 caused this deviation in results. Further, since the tower is square
and slender, across wind phenomenon dominates the wind tunnel
incorporated in the next revision/amendment of the IS875. derived loads provided in Fig. 7, and these loads are in reasonable
comparison with the across wind loads based on the AS1170.2. Across
4. Structural wind loads wind load results based on standards are also provided for the earlier
example in Fig. 5. In this case, corresponding to rectangle building, both
4.1. Along wind loads IS875 and AS1170.2 are producing similar results.
The 2011 version of AS1170.2 recommended empirical equations for
The 1987 version of the IS875 used a set of figures for calculating the determining across wind force spectrum coefficient (Cfs) based on
Gust Factor, the key parameter involved in estimating along wind loads reduced velocity (Vn); this is a critical parameter for calculating across
on tall buildings. Most of these drawings were on a log plot and the wind base overturning moment and force distribution. The current IS875
process of selecting various parameters was tedious and subjective. The uses figures to calculate Cfs and this process is tedious and subjective.

6
K.S. Kumar Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104240

Fig. 5. Comparison of non-directional peak overall loads on a rectangular building.

0:5 ρair ½Vdes 2 Vdes

Table 5 ð1þgv Ih Þ2
, Vh ¼ 1þgv Ih ,
and the mode shape correction factor for across
 
Drag coefficient for rectangular clad buildings.
wind base moment ¼ ð1:06  0:06kÞ ¼ kþ23
Km . The reduced velocity
Standard h/b a/ Drag
b Coefficient Vdes Vh
used in the 2011 version of AS1170.2 is, Vn ¼ nc b ð1þgv Ih Þ ¼ nc b , where
AS 1170.2: 2011 ALL (height limited to 200m) 1 1.30 nc ¼ the first mode natural frequency of the building in the across wind
Table 5.2 A & B 2 1.10
4 1.00
direction. This proves that the empirical equations used in the 2011
ASCE 7–16 ALL 1 1.30 version of AS1170.2 can be used to determine the across wind force
Figs. 27.3–1 2 1.10 spectrum coefficient required for the across wind base moment
4 1.00 calculation.
IS 875 (Part 3): 2015 10 (values given up to h/b ¼ 1 1.15–1.90
Fig. 4 ∞) 2 0.95–1.30
3 1.90–1.20 4.3. Torsional loading
Note: h ¼ height, b ¼ breadth perpendicular to wind, a ¼ depth parallel to wind.
Practitioners always have difficulty in understanding the complex
torsional wind loading as compared to wind-induced lateral sway
Therefore, the existing empirical equations provided in the 2011 version
loading, and hence overlooked in typical designs mostly. Many standards
of AS1170.2 can be used for our purpose since the basic formulation is
of practice are also silent on this type of loading. When wind flows over a
the same in both standards. The across wind base overturning moment
building, at any given wind direction and time, along with lateral sway
shown in the current IS875 is
loading in the orthogonal principal axis, the torsional loading will act on
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the building as well. The subjected torsional loading value depends on
π Cfs
Mc ¼ 0:5 gh ph b h2 ð1:06  0:06kÞ (1) key factors such as the geometry of the building, immediate surround-
β ings, and dynamic characteristics.
Aerodynamic torsion can occur even in symmetrical shapes due to
where, Mc ¼ across wind base moment, gh ¼ peak factor, ph ¼ hourly unsteady flow caused by vortex shedding. Further, when the wind blows
mean wind pressure at height h, b ¼ breadth of the structure normal to at skewed angles away from normal to the façade, this creates attached
wind, h ¼ height of structure, k ¼ mode shape power exponent, β ¼ and separated flows at orthogonal facades leading to aerodynamically
damping ratio, Cfs ¼ across wind force spectrum coefficient. induced torsion on the structure. Torsion is quite complicated to estimate
The across wind base overturning moment in the 2011 version of in case of a nonuniform shape where wind tunnel tests will be helpful.
AS1170.2 is Fig. 8 pictorially explains how the mean torsion on a square tall building
    sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi originates. At normal to façade as well as at an oblique angle of 45 , the
0:5 ρair ½Vdes 2 2 3 π Cfs flow is symmetrical and therefore, mean torsion is zero. But as the wind
Mc ¼ 0:5 gR b h Km (2)
ð1 þ gv Ih Þ2 kþ2 β blows at skewed angle increasing from zero, due to sharp flow separation
at one façade, induces anticlockwise mean torsion. As soon as the wind
where, Mc ¼ across wind base moment, gR ¼ peak factor for resonant angle increased above 45 , the sharp flow separation switches to the
response, b ¼ breadth of the structure normal to wind, gv ¼ peak factor other side of the corner, which eventually makes the mean torsion
for velocity fluctuations, Ih ¼ turbulent intensity at height h, ρair ¼ air clockwise as depicted in the figure. This flow switching phenomenon
density, Vdes ¼ peak wind speed at height h, k ¼ mode shape power continues at each corner producing four positive and negative humps
exponent, Km ¼ 0.76 þ 0.24k ¼ mode shape correction factor for cross- each. Over and above the mean torsion, the induced fluctuating torsion
wind acceleration, β ¼ damping ratio, Cfs ¼ across wind force spectrum together create the peak torsional loads.
coefficient. Due to immediate surroundings, the torsion on a building can in-
2
Equations (1) and (2) are similar, where ph ¼ 0:5 ρair Vh ¼ crease or decrease. In the case of a building very close to another
building, the torsional loading can increase due to an unbalanced flow

7
K.S. Kumar Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104240

Fig. 6. Comparison of cross wind force spectrum coefficient.

Fig. 7. Comparison of non-directional peak overall loads on a square tower.

around the subject building caused by the adjacent building. Further,
dynamic characteristics of the structure such as frequencies, mass
moment of inertia, and modal coupling can also influence the torsional
loading in a significant way. Typically, low frequencies, as well as sway-
torsion modal coupling, can increase the torsional loading.
Torsional loading for high rise structures can be calculated using the
following equation,
Mz ¼ max ðFx; FyÞ maxðBx; ByÞ et (3)
where, Mz ¼ torsion(Nm), Fx, Fy ¼ sway loads (N), Bx, By ¼ width in
orthogonal axis (m), et ¼ torsional eccentricity (%). In this way, the along
wind sway loads calculated using standard shall be used to determine
torsion. The only unknown is the torsional eccentricity. Table 6 provides
sample cases showing the torsional eccentricity of tall buildings.
Based on the many wind tunnel tests carried out for decades on all
types of buildings, eccentricity seems to vary between 5% and 25%.
Typically for a square building, the eccentricity is small, and as the
building becomes an elongated rectangle, torsional eccentricity

8
K.S. Kumar
Fig. 8. Anatomy of occurrence of mean torsion on a square building.
Table 6
Torsional eccentricity of tall buildings – sample cases.
Geometry
Bx x By (m) 27 x 27 42 x 99
H (m) 161 111
fz (Hz) 0.33 0.24
et 9% 12%
Bx, By ¼ width, H ¼ height, fz ¼ torsional frequency, et ¼ torsional eccentricity [Mz/max(Fx, Fy)/max(Bx, By) ].
increases. ASCE7 has suggested 15% eccentricity. Based on decades of
wind tunnel testing experience, 15% eccentricity seems proper value to
offer a first estimate of torsion on any building.
4.4. Wind load combinations
As mentioned in earlier sections, sway loading (along wind and across
wind), as well as torsional loading, are occurring simultaneously when
the wind blows over a tall building. However, they do not reach their
peaks simultaneously, and hence, need proper combination factors to
merge their peaks. The lack of correlation between forces corresponding
to the three-axis (x,y,z) is the reason their peaks are not occurring at the
same time. The geometry of the building can increase the correlation
between the various forces acting in the same building. In an elongated
rectangle building, likely aerodynamic torsion is more correlated to one
of the sway loading by its shape. Partially blocked surrounding structures
can force the flow in certain angles where all three loadings could be
more correlated. Further, the dynamic characteristics can also influence
the correlation between the forces. When the torsion is coupled with
sway direction, typically this might drive to a higher correlation between
torsion and sway loads.
Many wind tunnel tests carried out by RWDI over the past few de-
cades showed that when maximizing loads in one of the axes (x or y or z),
the remaining two secondary component loadings can range mostly
9
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104240
33 x 29 29 x 15 22 x 73
173 190 187
0.21 0.36 0.16
9% 9% 12%
between 30% and 60% of their maximums. Therefore, a recommendation
is made to consider 100% for the primary component, and 50% for
the secondary components while carrying out the preliminary design
until detailed wind tunnel test results become available. It is also rec-
ommended to consider various permutations and combinations of sign
conventions to find the various critical design cases which are unique for
each structure.
5. Concluding remarks
This paper explains the updates in the third revision of the Indian
wind loading standard (IS 875 (Part 3), 2015), potential issues with
certain provisions, and possible solutions for the users of the standard.
There have been several changes at various sections, but the standard in
the current form baffles the practitioners as how these provisions apply.
This paper describes the key areas requiring changes, followed by
appropriate recommendations/amendments for next revision of the
IS875. Areas requiring revision/amendment are (a) the importance fac-
tor for the cyclonic region (k4), (b) the interference factor, (c) the local
peak pressure coefficient provided in Table 5 of the standard, (d) the
force coefficient provided in Figure 4 of the standard, (e) the across wind
calculation using empirical equations from AS/NZS 1170.2 (2011), (f)
the torsional loading provisions, and (g) the wind load combinations.
K.S. Kumar Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104240

Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
K. Suresh Kumar: Writing - review & editing.
References
AS 1170.2, 1989. Australian Standard, Minimum Design Loads on Structures, Part 2:
Wind Loads. Standards Australia, North Sydney.
ASCE7-16, 2016. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures. Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE, Reston, VA.
AS/NZS 1170.2, 2011. Australian/New Zealand Standard, Structural Design Actions, Part
2: Wind Actions. Standards Australia, Sydney/Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
IS 875 (Part 3), 2015. Standard of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for
Buildings and Structures, Part 3 Wind Loads. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
NBC2010, 2010. User’s Guide NBC – 2010, Structural Commentaries (Part 4). Canadian
Commission on Building and Fire Standards, National Research Council of Canada.
Peter Irwin, A., 1987. Pressure model techniques for cladding loads. In: 7th International
Conference on Wind Engineering (ICWE), Aachen, Germany.
Suresh Kumar, K., 2011. Commentary on the Indian standards for wind loads. In: 13th
International Confeerence on Wind Engineering (ICWE), Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Suresh Kumar, K., 2015. Recent wind storms, damages and preventive measures in India.
In: 14th International Conference on Wind Engineering (ICWE), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Suresh Kumar, K., 2019. Wind loading on tall buildings: review of IS875(Part 3):2015. In:
15th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Beijing, China.
Suresh Kumar, K., Cini, C., Sifton, V., 2012. Assessment of design wind speeds for metro
cities of India. In: 7th International Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and
Applications (BBAA7) Shanghai, China.

10