CFE MDOC 2008 Civil Manual Chapter 4. Wind

COMISIÓN FEDERAL DE ELECTRICIDAD
CIVIL WORKS DESIGN MANUAL

WIND DESIGN

DIRECTORY
MEXICOl2008
CONTENT
Ing. Alfredo Elías Ayub

General Director
Dr. Florencio Aboytes García
Programming Subdirector
Lic. Manuel Garza González
Energy Saving Program Coordinator of the Electric Sector
Ing. Néstor Moreno Díaz
Operation Director
Ing. Luis Carlos Hernández Ayala
Generation Subdirector
Ing. Jesús A. Buentello García
Energetic and Safety Sub director
Ing. Noé Peña Silva
Transmission Subdirector
Ing. José Abed Valdez Campoy
Distribution Subdirector
Ing. Gustavo Alonso Salvador Torres
Energy Control National Center Subdirector
Lic. Fernando José Bueno Montalvo
Administration Director
Lic. Francisco Javier Santoyo Vargas
Finance Director
Ing. Rodolfo Nieblas Castro
Modernization and Structural Change Director
Ing. Eugenio Laris Alanís
Financed Investment Projects Director
Ing. Alberto Ramos Elorduy
Projects Development Sub director
Lic. Carlos Ortíz y Farfán
Financed Investment Projects Contracting Sub director
Ing. Benjamín Granados Domínguez
Projects and Construction Sub director
Dr. Humberto Marengo Mogollón
Hydroelectric Projects Coordinator
Fís. Juan Manuel Rodríguez Álvavez
Thermoelectric Projects Coordinator
Ing. César Fernando Fuentes Estrada
Transmission and Transformation Projects Coordinator
Ing. Gustavo Arvizu Lara
Civil Engineering Studies Manager
Ing. Jesús Enrique Mena Sandoval
Structure Behavior Sub manager
Lic. Rubén López Magallanes
Control Internal Organization
CONTENT
PROLOGUE
The Civil Works Design Manual from its first edition on 1969, incorporates the
technological knowledge and experience result from the hard work of engineers and
specialists of the Comisión Federal de Electricidad and Mexican researchers of
universities and research centers coming from the design, execution and operation of the
Works carried by the CFE.
During its life, the Manual has been subjected to total and partial revisions until becoming
an indispensable reference document for many of the engineering Works constructed in
the country and Latin America. The Manual constitutes an important document for
Mexican engineering, since reflects the best of its experience and knowledge. Its
extensive avant-garde content has converted it into a complementary text in universities
and educational centers in engineering fields.
The present reviewed edition of the Wind Design chapter incorporates data and
experiences of strong cyclones which affected the Mexican Republic and other countries in
the last years, as well as the results of many studies of their effects on modern structures
and constitutes an example of the effort the Comisión Federal de Electricidad performs to
become consolidated as a world class company.
Ing. Benjamín Granados Domínguez

Projects and Construction Sub director
México, D. F., December, 2008

CIVIL WORKS DESIGN MANUAL
SECTION C. STRUCTURES
SUBJECT 1. DESIGN CRITERIA
CHAPTER 4
WIND DESIGN
Elaboration Dr. Alberto López López (1)

M. I. Celso Joaquín Muñoz Black (1)
Dr. Luis Eduardo Pérez Rocha (1)
Collaboration M. C. Alonso Alvarado González (1)
Ing. Armandina Edna Alanís Velázquez (1)
L. I. Erick Martín del Campo Castrejón (1)
M. I. Jorge Iván Vilar Rojas (1)
M. C. María de Jesús Vergara Pineda (1)
L. S. C. Rosa María Rodríguez Soberanes (1)
External Collaboration Dr. David de León Escobedo (2)
Dr. Hugo Hernández Barrios (3)
Dr. Jorge Sánchez Sesna (5)
CFE Technical Committee Ing. Elisa Andrade Ocádiz (4)
Ing. Federico M. Hach Gómez Llanos (4)
Ing. Fernando de Artola Noble (4)
Ing. Francisco Navarrete Alemán (4)
Ing. Gherman Castellanos Román (4)
Ing. José Francisco Fernández Romero (4)
Ing. Leodegario Sansón Reyes (4)
Ing. Luis Enrique Hernández Cruz (4)
Ing. Martín Sánchez Muñoz (4)
Coordination Ing. Enrique Mena Sandoval (4)
Dr. Vicente Alfredo Guerrero Flores† (1)
Technical Revision Dr. Luis Esteva Maraboto (6)
Dr. Mario Gustavo Ordaz Schroeder (6)
Prof. Neftali Rodríguez Cuevas (6)
__________________________________________
(1) Instituto de Investigaciones Eléctricas
(2) Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México
(3) Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo
(4) Comisión Federal de Electricidad
(5) Consultor en Ingeniería Eólica
(6) Instituto de Ingeniería
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Cover Design: Nadia Carolina Rodríguez Ledezma and Diffusion Department, IIE
Acknowledgments
This document has been elaborated with the support and financial contribution of the
Transmission and Transformation Projects Coordination and Civil Engineering Studies
Management of the Comisión Federal de Electricidad.
In memoriam
The accomplishment of the Wind Design Chapter updating is due to the strong impetus of
Dr. Vicente Alfredo Guerrero Flores, who was Civil Engineering Manager of the Electric
Research Institute and coordinator of these works. With great recognition from his friends
and collaborators the present document was concluded.
Rights reserved by: Comisión Federal de Electricidad, Río Ródano # 14, Col. Cuauhtémoc,
Del. Cuauhtémoc, C. P. 06598, México, D. F. This edition and its characteristics are
property of the Comisión Federal de Electricidad, México.
Printed in Mexico, 2008. Copyright 2008
PREFACE
WIND DESIGN MANUAL, EDITION 2008
Since the 1993 edition of the Wind Design Manual there has been presented an important
advance in the methodology development for a better estimation of actions induced by
wind and its effects on constructions. On the other hand, the increase of human life losses,
material damages and interruption of essential services because of strong winds and
hurricanes prevailing in Mexico, originated the updating of the techniques used to optimize
the design and performance of structures before such effects produced by wind.
For this edition an exhaustive revision has been accomplished in matter of research and
standardization at international level originating the updating of wind design criteria.
The maximum winds database in the country of the Electric Research Institute has been
updated and extended thanks to the records of the meteorological stations of the National
Meteorological Service; also, for getting more wind data in our frontiers, they have been
complemented with the data from the National Meteorological Service of Belize and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Unites States of America.
Likewise, the NOAA supplied the data corresponding to hurricanes occurred as much in
the Pacific coast as in the Atlantic and Caribbean coasts.
The probabilistic analysis of this database has allowed establish a better estimation of
danger by wind in Mexico, which is presented in new isotach maps.
With the purpose to improve the safety of structures before wind, it has been applied the
optimum design criterion which seeks to minimize the costs of losses for different
importance levels of structures, obtaining for the first time, as much national as
international, optimal speed maps.
Because of the aleatory fluctuations of wind pressure due to wind turbulence and
aerodynamic characteristics of the different types of structures, their effects have been
established based on the definition of shape coefficients and dynamic response factors.
In this Wind Design Manual new edition a group of Mexican experts on the subject has
participated, their contribution enhance the wind engineering knowledge in Mexico with the
purpose to get more reliable and optimal wind structural designs.
This manual has become a great relevance consulting document for practice, education
and research worldwide, thanks to the support of the Comisión Federal de Electricidad.
Dr. Alberto López López

Civil Engineering Management
Electric Research Institute
December, 2008
CONTENT
CONTENT
VOLUME I RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 CRITERIA FOR WIND DESIGN 1
4.1.1 SCOPE 1
4.1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 2
4.1.3 CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR IMPORTANCE 4
4.1.4 CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPONSE 6
BEFORE WIND ACTION
4.1.5 WIND ACTIONS TO CONSIDER 7
4.1.6 PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING ACTIONS GENERATED BY WIND 9
4.1.7 UNITS 9
4.2 DETERMINATION OF THE DESIGN BASIC SPEED, VD 1

4.2.1 TERRAIN CATEGORIES ACCORDING TO THEIR ROUGHNESS 1
4.2.2 ISOTACH MAPS, REGIONAL SPEED, VR 3
4.2.2.1 REGIONAL SPEED FOR A FIXED RETURN PERIOD 3
4.2.2.2 OPTIMAL REGIONAL SPEED 7
4.2.3 EXPOSURE FACTOR, Frz 10
4.2.4 TOPOGRAPHY FACTOR, FT 11
4.2.5 BASE DYNAMIC PRESSURE, qz 15
4.2.6 ACTING PRESSURE ON STRUCTURES, pz 16
4.2.7 ACTING FORCE ON STRUCTURES 17
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS 1

4.3.1 LIMITATIONS 1
4.3.2 PRESSURES AND FORCES DUE TO WIND ACTION 2
4.3.2.1 Forces on closed constructions 2
4.3.2.2 Horizontal roof constructions with sloped ends 19
4.3.2.3 Constructions with multiple span roofs (γ<60°) 20
4.3.2.4 Constructions with circular arch roof 22
4.3.2.5 Isolated roofs 28
4.3.2.6 Canopies and roofs adjacent to closed constructions 33
4.3.2.7 Cantilever roofs 35
4.3.2.8 Isolated billboards and walls 37
4.3.2.9 Cylindrical silos and tanks 40
4.3.2.10 Forces on individual members 44
4.3.2.11 Chimneys and towers 50
4.3.2.12 Telecommunication towers and fittings 53
4.4 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 1

4.4.1 LIMITATIONS 1
4.4.2 DETERMINATION OF MEAN SPEED, V’D 3
4.4.2.1 Exposure factor for mean speed, F’rz 3
4.4.4 EQUIVALENT DYNAMIC FORCE AT THE WIND SPEED, Feq, FOR PRISMATIC 5
AND CYLINDRICAL STRUCTURES
4.4.4.1 Dynamic amplification factor for prismatic structures 5
4.4.4.2 Dynamic amplification factor for cylindrical structures 12
4.4.5 EQUIVALENT DYNAMIC FORCE AT THE WIND DIRECTION, Feq, FOR SELF 14
SUPPORTING LATTICE TOWERS
4.4.5.1 Dynamic amplification factor for self supporting lattice towers 15
4.4.6 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF DEFORMABLE ROOFS WITH CONICAL SHAPE 20
4.4.7 EQUIVALENT FORCES PERPENDICULAR TO WIND DIRECTION. PERIODIC 22
VORTICES EFFECT
4. I. i
CONTENT
4.4.7.1Critical speed of periodic vortices, Vcrit 23

4.4.7.2Forces due to periodic vortex detachment 23
4.4.7.3Maximum cross displacement at wind flow, YF,max 24
4.4.7.4Recommendations to decrease vibrations due to periodic vortices 27
detachment
4.4.8 AEROLASTIC INSTABILITY 27
APPENDIXES
4A FORCE AND DRAG COEFFICIENTS 1

4A.1 INTRODUCTION 1
4A.2 CYLINDRICAL OR PRISMATIC SHAPED ELEMENTS WITH ROUNDED EDGES 1
4A.3 PRISMATIC SHAPED ELEMENTS WITH SHARP EDGES 1
4A.4 RECTANGULAR PRISMATIC SHAPED ELEMENTS 3
4A.5 STRUCTURAL SHAPES 5
4A.6 CORRECTION FACTOR BY SLENDERNESS RATIO 5
4A.7 DRAG COEFFICIENTS FOR MICROWAVE ANTENNAS 7
4B AEROLASTIC INSTABILITY AND SERVICE CONDITIONS 1

4B.1 AEROLASTIC INSTABILITY 3
4B.1.1 Galloping 3
4B.1.2 Galloping in coupled cylinders 5
4B.1.3 Galloping by interference of two or more individual cylinders 6
4B.2 SERVICE CONDITIONS 8
4B.2.1 Maximum displacement at the longitudinal direction 10
4B.2.2 Maximum acceleration at the longitudinal direction
4C REGIONAL SPEEDS 1
Table C.1 REGIONAL SPEEDS OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CITIES 1
Table C.2 LOCATION, ALTITUDE AND ANNUAL MEAN TEMPERATURE OF THE 6
MOST IMPORTANT CITIES
4D NOMENCLATURE 1
4D.1 CRITERIA FOR WIND DESIGN 1
4D.2 DETERMINATION OF THE DESIGN BASIC SPEED, VD 1
4D.3 STATIC ANALYSIS 3
4D.4 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 9
NOTE: Volumes II of Comments and III of Design Aids as well as the Wind System are
provided in digital way. The references are in the Volume of Comments.
4. I. ii
4.1 WIND DESIGN CRITERIA
4.1.1 SCOPE
In this chapter are present the procedures necessary to determine the wind speeds at the
Mexican Republic and the corresponding minimum forces to be used for the aeolian
design of the structural types described herein.
Special constructions, such as bridges, marine structures distant from the coasts and
transmission towers are out of the scope of this chapter and shall be designed according
to the outlines established in the technical literature for each structure or by experts by
experimental studies that prove their safety and proper operation.
In the determination of wind speeds only were considered those effects produced by the
storms that normally occur during the year along the country and those caused by
hurricanes at the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean coasts. The influence of winds
generated by tornados and short local storms was not considered due to the limited
information about the matter and because they are estimated as low occurrence events
which only are present in small regions of the north of the country, particularly and in order
of importance in the states of Coahuila, Nuevo León, Chihuahua and Durango. For this
reason, in those places where the effects of tornados and local storms are considered
significant the necessary provisions shall be taken into account for their estimation. In
Simiu and Scanlan (1996) and Holmes (2007) are established the outlines to evaluate
such effects.
It shall be pointed out that the recommendations presented herein shall be applied to
determine the safety of the main structure system and its parts before the actions (thrusts
or suctions) produced by wind on the construction surfaces and transmitted to such
system.
Likewise, these recommendations apply for local design of elements directly exposed to
wind action, as much those elements which are part of the structural system as cords and
diagonals, as those that only constitute their covering, for example covering sheets, façade
elements and glasses.
4.1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The general requirements listed next are applicable to analysis and design of structures
subjected to wind action and shall be considered as the minimum recommended ones.
The particular recommendations mentioned in other chapters of this manual correspond to
specific structures (Section C, Subject 2, Chapters 3 to 7) complement the
recommendations of this chapter and will be applicable if they are versions posterior to
that of the present chapter.
4.1 I. 1
The variables considered as requirements to resist the wind action are:
a) Analysis direction. The constructions will be analyzed in a way that the wind can
act at least in two horizontal perpendicular directions and independent between
them. There will be selected those that represent the more unfavorable conditions
for the structure stability (or part of the same) under study, taking into account the
terrain roughness according to the wind direction. In order to define the terrain
roughness around the footprint (desplante) site, the surrounding obstacles and
constructions shall be considered.
b) Load and bearing capacity factor. The outlines established in this manual will
follow out, Section C (Structures), Subject 1, Chapter 1 and 2 (Design and
Actions Methods).
c) Safety against overturning. The safety of constructions shall be verified without

considering live loads that contribute to decrease the overturning. For structures of
Groups B and C, the ratio between resisting moment and acting of overturning
moment shall not be smaller than 1.5 and for those structures of Group A, it shall
not be smaller than 2. The classification of the structures in groups will be made in
function of their importance as presented in point 4.1.3.
d) Safety against displacement. When analyzing this possibility, all live loads will be
considered null. The ratio between the displacement resistance and the force that
causes the horizontal displacement will be at least equal to 1.5 for structures of
Groups B and C, for structures of Group A the ratio will be at least equal to 2. The
classification in groups is presented in point 4.1.3.
e) Safety against lifting. Light or provisional structures, as well as roofs and covering
of constructions can present problems when generating lifting forces due to wind.
When analyzing this possibility, the live loads that diminish the lifting effect will be
considered null.
f) Internal pressures. They are present in permeable structures like windows, louvers
or doors that allow air input and output of the construction. The effect of these
pressures is combined with that of external pressure in a way that the design
considers the most unfavorable effects.
g) Safety during the construction. In this stage it is necessary to establish the

measures necessary for guaranteeing the safety of structures under wind action.
In this condition the structures will be considered within the Group C to which
corresponds a design speed with a return period of ten years. This condition will
be also applied to provisional structures that prevail during a period smaller or
equal to six months, being also of Group C, as indicated in point 4.1.3.
4.1 I. 2
h) Group effect due to nearby constructions. In this chapter shall be accepted that the
structure response is independent of the favorable or unfavorable influence that
other nearby constructions cause when presented the wind action. The proximity
and disposition of them can generate adverse local pressures and the collapse of
one or several structures of the group. So, for a group of high chimneys which are
close among them to a distance smaller than one diameter, the variation of
pressures can cause instability problems. It is recommended to evaluate the group
effect from the experimental tests results referred in the technical literature (see
Simiu and Scanlan, 1996) or by tests in a wind tunnel.
i) Structural analysis. The analysis general criteria indicated in this manual can be
applied, Section C (Structures), Subject 2, Chapter 1 (Structure Analysis).
j) Soil-structure interaction. When the soil of the footprint (desplante) site is soft or
compressible, there shall be considered the effects that, in response of the wind
action, can cause the interaction between soil and construction. In soft soils this
interaction is significant when the mean speed of shearing waves’ propagation in
the soil strata that support the structure is smaller than 400 m/s. At the time to
consider the soil-structure interaction the outlines of Chapter C.1.3 Seism Design
will be followed, where the methods to establish the vibration fundamental period
and effective damping of the structure are recommended. These parameters will
be used to evaluate the loads due to wind and corresponding response.
4.1.3 CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR IMPORTANCE
It is recommended that the necessary safety for a construction to comply with the functions
for which will be destined, is established from the importance levels. In the current
practice, such levels are assigned to design speeds corresponding to constant and optimal
return periods.
In this point, according to the selected importance level for a structure, the constructions
are classified in groups defined next.
GROUP A Structures with a high safety grade. In this group are included those
structures which failure cause the loss of an important number of lives or
exceptionally high economical or cultural damages; constructions or
deposits which failure imply a significant danger for storing or containing
toxic or flammable substances; constructions which operation is
indispensable and shall continue after the occurrence of strong winds and
constructions which failure impede the operation of thermoelectric,
hydroelectric and nuclear plants. Examples of these structures are: meeting
areas with capacity higher than two hundred people (show rooms,
auditoriums and convention centers), buildings housing specially expensive
equipment, museums, temples, stadiums, hydrocarbon distribution
4.1 I. 3
terminals, telephone centrals and main telecommunication real state,

transportation terminal stations, firemen, rescue and police stations,
hospitals and medical real state with urgency areas, operation centers for
disaster situations, schools, chimneys, electric substations.
GROUP B Structures for which a moderate safety grade is recommended. Within this
group are those structures which failure will generate low loss of human
lives and cause intermediate material damages; they are those which failure
by wind can put into danger other structures of this group or previous group;
constructions which are part of energy generation plants and which failure
will not paralyze the operation of the plant. Examples of structures of this
group are: industrial plants, electric substations with importance lower than
those of Group A, ordinary warehouses, gas stations (except external
deposits of fuels pertaining to Group A), commerce premises, restaurants,
habitation houses, apartments or offices buildings, hotels, fences which
height is higher than 2.5 meters. Also they are part of this group: meeting
and show rooms, urban or industrial deposit structures not included in
Group A. Covering such as screens and structural elements which are part
of the facades will be within this group as long as do not cause important
corporal or material damages when detached, on the contrary will be
analyzed as pertaining to Group A.
GROUP C Structures for which it is recommended a low safety grade. Structures

which failure does not imply serious consequences, does not cause
damages to constructions of Groups A and B. It includes temporary
structures of elements with a useful life smaller than three months,
provisional warehouses, woodworks, cartels, isolated walls and fences with
height smaller or equal to 2.5 meters. The necessary provisions for safety
during the construction of structures will be evaluated for the importance of
this group.
4.1.4 CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPONSE

BEFORE WIND ACTION
By the characteristics of the structure behavior to wind dynamic effects, the constructions
are classified in four types. Once established their classification could be selected the
method to estimate the design loads caused by wind on the structures. In point 4.1.6 two
procedures to define de design loads are recommended, one static and other dynamic
which are detailed in points 4.3 and 4.4 respectively.
TYPE 1 Structure little sensible to wind gusts and wind dynamic effects. The
structures grouped in this type are those which slenderness ratio, λ (defined
as the ratio between height and the smallest dimension in plant) is smaller
than or equal to five with and with a first mode natural vibration period
4.1 I. 4
smaller than or equal to one second. Most of the habitation or offices

buildings, warehouses, industrial premises, theaters and auditoriums, short
bridges. For beams and simple or continue frameworks the slenderness
ratio will be obtained by dividing the greater clearance by the smaller
dimension perpendicular to it. This includes the closed constructions with
rigid covering systems able to resist loads due to wind without changing
essentially their geometry. Flexible covers are excluded like those of
hanging type, unless due to the adoption of an adequate geometry,
provided by the pre-stress application or another convenient measure, the
dynamic structural response is limited in a way to satisfy the requirements
established here.
TYPE 2 Structures that, because of their high slenderness ratio or reduced

dimensions of their cross section, are sensible to wind turbulence and with
natural periods that favor the occurrence of important oscillations by wind
action. In this type are included buildings with slenderness ratio, λ greater
than five or with fundamental period greater than one second; the guyed
lattice towers, chimneys, elevated tanks, antennas, fences, parapets,
billboards and constructions with a small dimension parallel to the wind
direction. Those structures explicitly mentioned as pertaining to Types 3
and 4 are excluded.
TYPE 3 These structures have all characteristics of Type 2 structures and present
important transversal oscillations to wind flow when appeared periodic
vortices or whirling that interact with the structure. Those slender cylindrical
or prismatic construction or elements such as chimneys, external or
elevated piping, lighting and distribution posts are included.
TYPE 4 Structures that because of their shape and dimensions or magnitude of their
vibration periods (natural periods greater than one second), present
unstable aerodynamic problems. Among them are the unstable
aerodynamic shapes as transmission line cables which cross section is
unfavorably modified in freezing zones, suspended piping and parabolic
antennas.
4.1.5 WIND ACTIONS TO CONSIDER
Next are mentioned the wind actions that, according to the construction type, shall be
considered for design.
ACTION I Mean thrusts. They are caused by pressures and wind mean flow suctions
as much external as internal and generate global pressures (for the design
of a structural element or coating in particular). It is considered that these
thrusts do not change with time.
4.1 I. 5
ACTION II Vibrations generated by turbulent gusts at the wind direction. These are
generated by variable forces, parallel to the mean flow, caused by wind
turbulence and which fluctuations in time have influence on the structural
response.
ACTION III Vibrations transversal to flow and torque. The presence of cylindrical or
prismatic structures within the wind flow generates the alternating vortices
detachment that cause cross forces and vibrations at the flow direction. On
the other hand, the possible asymmetric distribution of pressures on
structures can cause torque forces on these.
ACTION IV Aerodynamic instability. This is generated by the dynamic amplification of

the structural response caused by: construction geometry, different wind
incidence angles, dynamic properties of the structure and aerodynamic
damping change.
In the design of structures pertaining to Type 1, it will be enough to analyze the structure
response before the wind mean thrust as established in point 4.3. The design basic speed
specified in point 4.2 will be used.
For designing the Type 2 constructions it will be considered the dynamic action generated
by the wind turbulence when interacting with the structure. The response will be evaluated
by the recommendations stated in point 4.4.
The Type 3 structures shall be designed with the criteria established for those Type 2
structures; also, shall be reviewed their capacity to resist the cross dynamic thrusts
generated by alternating vortices, according to point 4.4.
Finally, for Type 4 structures the wind effects will be evaluated by analytic and/or
experimental studies; the normally the resulting effects are greater than those obtained for
Type 3 constructions; therefore, those resulting for Type 3 constructions will be considered
as minimum.
In constructions which geometry and rigidity characteristics are sensible to wind dynamic
effects, their analysis will be based on the results of the prototype tests or wind tunnel
models.
The procedures of the wind tunnel tests and interpretation of results will follow techniques
recognized in the literature, as indicated in point 4.1.6. It is required that such procedures
and techniques are approved by experts on the subject and corresponding authorities.
4.1.6 PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING ACTIONS GENERATED BY WIND
4.1 I. 6
For evaluating the forces induced on structures by wind flow, mainly are proposed two
analytical procedures in representative models: static analysis (point 4.3) and dynamic
analysis (point 4.4). The first model will be applied to Type 1 structures or structural
elements sufficiently rigid. For the other Types the dynamic analysis will be used. If the
total height of the structure is greater than 200 m or if a clearance is greater than 100 m, it
is necessary to apply the third procedure mentioned next and have the advice of an expert
on the subject.
The third procedure to evaluate the wind action on constructions appeals to experimental
tests of wind tunnel models that shall be carried out when there is not available information
in regulations or technical literature. In Simiu and Scalan (1996), Holmes (2007) and
ASCE (1999) can be found recommendations about the use of techniques to carry out the
wind tunnel tests.
In Figure 4.1.1 a procedure flow diagram is shown to evaluate the wind actions for
structure design.
Finally, in Appendix B some general recommendations are given in regard to aerolastic

instability and service limit statuses, displacements and accelerations produced by the
wind action. These limits will be considered to avoid the structure malfunction as well as
the lack of safety of its occupants.
4.1.7 UNITS
First of all, in this chapter is used the International Unit System (SI): Newton (N), Pascal
(Pa), second (s) and Hertz (Hz). In brackets are expressions or values in kilogram, meter
and second units used in Mexico.
4.1 I. 7
Note: The numbers in brackets refer to index points.

Figure 4.1.1 Flow Diagram of the procedure to obtain the wind loads
4.1 I. 8
4.2 DETERMINATION OF THE DESIGN BASIC SPEED, VD
The design basic speed, VD, is the speed from which the wind effects on the structure or
on a component are calculated.
The design basic speed, in km/h, is obtained with the equation:
Where:
FT is the factor that depends on local topography, dimensionless
Frz is the factor that takes into account the effect of local exposure
characteristics, dimensionless, and
VR is the regional gust speed corresponding to the site where the structure will
be constructed, in km/h
The regional gust speed, VR and factors Frz and FT are defined and determined in points
4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 respectively.
4.2.1 TERRAIN CATEGORIES ACCORDING TO THEIR ROUGHNESS
As much in the static analysis procedure as in the dynamic analysis procedure participate
factors that depend on the topographic conditions and local exposure where the
construction will be founded. Therefore, with the purpose to evaluate appropriately such
factors it is necessary to establish practical classifications. In Table 4.2.1 are stated four
terrain categories presented around the footprint (desplante) zone. The exposure and
topography factors shall be related with the characteristics of the footprint site.
At the analyzed wind direction, the terrain adjoining to the structure shall have the same
roughness (category) at least at a distance denominated “development minimum length”,
which is stated in Table 4.2.1 for each terrain category. When this minimum length does
not exist, the local exposure factor, Frz, defined in point 4.2.3, shall be modified for taking
into account this fact. In this case, the designer could select among the terrain categories
which are at a given analysis direction, the category that causes the most unfavorable
effects and determine the exposure factor for such category or follow a more refined
analytic procedure to correct the exposure factor, as indicated in point 4.2.3, Comments.
4.2 I. 1
Table 4.2.1 TERRAIN CATEGORY ACCORDING TO ITS ROUGHNESS
Cat. Description Examples Limitations

Flat coast strips, damp or The minimum length of
lake zones, aerial fields, this type of terrain at the
Open terrain, practically pasturelands and wind direction shall be
1 flat without obstructions cultivation lands without 2000 m or 10 times the
and water surfaces hedges or fences around, height of the construction
flat snow covered to be designed,
surfaces whichever is the greatest
The existing obstructions
have height from 1.5 to
Cultivation fields or farms
10 m, the minimum
Flat or undulating with few obstructions
length shall be the
2 terrain with few such as hedges or fences
greater among 1500 m or
obstructions around, trees and
10 times the height of the
dispersed constructions
construction to be
designed
The existing obstructions
Urban, suburban and present heights from 3 to
forest areas or any 5 m. The minimum
Terrain covered by a lot terrain with a lot of length of this type of
3 of closely spaced closely spaced terrain at the wind
obstructions obstructions. The direction shall be 500 m
construction size or 10 times the height of
correspond to houses the new construction,
whichever is the greatest
At least the 50% of the
buildings have a height
greater than 20 m the
obstructions are 10 to 30
Terrain with a lot of Centers of great cities m high. The minimum
4 closely spaced long, and well developed length of this type of
high obstructions industrial complexes terrain at the wind
direction shall be the
greatest among 400 and
10 times the height of the
new construction
4.2.2 ISOTACH MAPS. REGIONAL SPEED, VR
The regional gust speed for design could be determined in two ways. One of them is
using the structure importance related with a fixed return period, as indicated in point
4.2 I. 2
4.2.2.1. The other way is associated with the acceptable relative cost of the
consequences in case that a structural failure is produced, as indicated in point 4.2.2.2.
The designer will use the traditional focus with the first procedure for the design of Group
A, B and C structures. However, a second procedure is supplied based on an optimal
focus from the economical point of view where a more reasonable use of long term
investments is made.
The recommended regional speeds for both procedures are provided under preestablished
homogeneous conditions: Terrain category 2 (according to Table 4.2.1), speeds
associated with gusts of 3 seconds and evaluated to 10 m high in flat terrain. Therefore,
when applied the exposure and topography factors, as indicated farther on, the real
conditions of the footprint (desplante) site will be considered.
4.2.2.1 Regional speed for a fixed return period
The regional speed of wind gust, VR, is the maximum speed which can be exceeded in a
certain return period, T, in years, in a determined zone or region of the country.
The regional gust speed, VR, in km/h, is determined taking into consideration as much the
structure importance as the geographic location of its footprint (desplante) site.
In Figures 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 are shown the regional isotach maps corresponding to
return periods of 200, 50 and 10 years, recommended for the wind design of Group A, B
and C structures respectively.
4.2 I. 3
4.2 I. 4
4.2 I. 5
4.2 I. 6
4.2.2.2 Optimal regional speed
The optimal regional speed, VRO, in km/h is the maximum speed for which the total costs is
minimized, determined with the construction initial cost plus the cost of repairs and direct
and indirect losses in the case that a failure is presented. The failure cost (repairs and
losses) is introduced in a dimensionless parameter, Q, called importance factor of losses
given by:
Where:
CI is the initial cost of the construction, and

CL is the cost of direct and indirect losses in case of a structural failure
The optimal regional speed, VRO, is determined by taking into account as much the
importance of losses through the Q value, as the geographic localization of the structure
footprint (desplante) site.
For the simplified application of this procedure, it is associated a value Q = 15 for the
design of Group A structures and Q = 5 for Group B structures.
If the designer selects this second procedure, the regional speed, VR will have the value of
VRO for the calculation of pressures and forces required in the points subsequent to this.
The isotach maps corresponding to these importance levels of losses are shown in
Figures 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 where the values of optimal regional gust speeds for design are
provided.
In Appendix C a table is shown with the main cities of the country and their regional
speeds for different return periods and optimal regional speeds for different values of Q.
4.2 I. 7
4.2 I. 8
4.2 I. 9
4.2.3 EXPOSURE FACTOR, Frz
The local exposure factor, Frz, establishes the wind speed variation with height, in function
of the terrain category. This factor is obtained according to the following expressions:
Where:
z is the height above the natural terrain to which it is desired to know the
design speed, in m
α is the exponent that determines the variation of wind speed with height,
dimensionless
δ height measured form the terrain level, above which the wind speed
variation is not important and can be assumed as constant; to this height is
known as gradient height, in m and
c is the roughness scale coefficient, dimensionless
The variables α, δ and c are in function of the terrain roughness, the recommended values
are shown in Table 4.2.3.
Table 4.2.3 VALUES OF α, δ AND c
As mentioned in point 4.2.1, when the minimum length of development is not satisfied, as
established in Table 4.2.1, the terrain category that generates the most unfavorable
conditions for the interested wind direction shall be selected. Alternatively, the roughness
4.2 I. 10
variation around the construction on a given site could be taken into account by correcting
the exposure factor Frz, using the procedure described in point 4.2.3 of Volume II
Comments of this same chapter.
4.2.4 TOPOGRAPHY FACTOR, FT
This factor takes into account the local topographic effect of the site where the structure
will be erected. For example, if the construction is located on sides or tops of hills or
mountains with important height regarding to the general level of the adjoining terrain, it is
probable that wind flow accelerations be generated and consequently the regional speed
shall be increased.
According with the topographic characteristics of the site, in Table 4.2.4 are present the
values and expressions to determine the topography factor value.
Table 4.2.4 LOCAL TOPOGRAPHY FACTOR, FT

Sites Local topography examples FT
Protected Closed valleys 0.9
Normal Practically flat terrain
Open field, absence of important
1.0
topographic changes with slopes smaller
than 5%
Exposed Promontory: See equations (4.2.6 to
Mounts, hillocks, hills, mountains 4.2.8)
Terrepleins:
Crags, cliffs, precipices, dikes, dams
Note: For exposed silos, this table applies together with Figures 4.2.6
For local topographic effects of promontories and Terrepleins, the topography factor is
calculated according with the following conditions:
within the local affectation hatched zone (see Figures

a) If 4.2.6(a) and 4.2.6(b)
FT = 1.00 (4.2.6)
b) if within the local affectation hatched zone (see Figures
4.2.6(a) and 4.2.6(b)
c) if within the flow separation zone, Ls=Ht/4, (see Figure

4.2.6(c)
Within the local affectation hatched zone (see Figure
4.2 I. 11
4.2.6 (c)), apply equation 4.2.7
The variable that intervene in the previous cases and in Figures 4.2.6 (a) to 4.2.6 (c) are
defined as:
Ht promontory or terraplein height, vertically measured from the start of the slope to
the top, in m
Lu windward horizontal distance measured from Ht/2 to the top of the promontory or
terraplein, in m
Xt windward or leeward horizontal distance, measured between the structure and the
top of the promontory or terraplein (observe that can have positive or negative
value), in m
L1 longitudinal scale to determine the vertical variation of FT, the greatest value
between 0.36Lu and 0.4Ht, in m, is taken
L2 longitudinal scale to determine the horizontal variation of FT, it is considered equal

to 4L1 for windward promontory or terraplein and equal to 10L1 for leeward
terrapleins, in m and
zt the reference height of the structure measured from the average level of the terrain,
in m, this height can be the total height of the structure, H, or the average height of
the sloped roof of the construction, ћ.
4.2 I. 12
In the leeward zone of the terrapleins along the L2 distance, the slope will not exceed 0.05.
In the case of exposed sites which do not comply with the previous conditions, the
topographic factor could be obtained using some of the following procedures:
1. Scale experiments in wind tunnels

2. Measures carried out directly on the site
Experts on the subject shall validate the results of any of these procedures.
4.2.5 BASE DYNAMIC PRESSURE, qz
When the wind acts on a construction, it generates pressures on its surfaces that vary as
the wind speed intensity and direction. The pressure exercised by the wind flow on a flat
surface perpendicular to it is denominated base dynamic pressure qz, in Pa, and
determined with the following equation:
4.2 I. 13
Where:
VD is the design basic speed, in km/h, defined in point 4.2
qz is the base dynamic pressure at a height z on the terrain level, in Pa, and
G is the correction factor by temperature and height with respect to the sea
level, dimensionless
The G value is obtained with the following expression:
Where:
Ω is the barometric pressure, in mm Hg, and
τ is the ambient temperature, in °C
In Table 4.2.5 are shown the ratio between height values, hm in meters above the sea level
(msnm) and the barometric pressure, Ω, in mm Hg (mercury).
4.2 I. 14
4.2.6 ACTING PRESSURE ON STRUCTURES, pz
The acting pressure on a determined construction, pz, in Pa, is obtained by considering

mainly its shape and is given, in general, by the equation:
Where the coefficient Cp is denominated pressure coefficient and is dimensionless.
This pressure is denominated mean or static thrust and is produced by the gust speed
effects.
The pressure coefficient is defined as the ratio of the acting pressure on the construction
or on one of its surfaces, with the base dynamic pressure for a given height. This
coefficient determines the pressure variation effect, by geometry or construction shape, as
well as the intensity of the speed and turbulence of the wind flow.
According to their application, the pressure coefficients are divided in the following types:
• Pressure coefficients on surfaces, determine the external or internal pressures

(thrust or suction)
• Drag coefficients on a body, determine the dragging force on constructions or
structural elements
• Net pressure coefficients on surfaces, determine the combined effect of thrusts and
suctions to evaluate the resulting forces
• Force coefficients on bodies, determine the general forces (forces or moments) on
a body
• Local pressure coefficients on surfaces, determine the peak local effect of
pressures in critical zones of the constructions
The values of the pressure coefficients for several structural shapes are specified in point
4.3.2.
4.2.7 ACTING FORCE ON STRUCTURES
The structural response before wind action depends on the dynamic properties of the
construction and can be divided in three different types:
• Static response, this occurs in structures not sensible to dynamic effects with
vibration natural frequencies considerably greater than the interval of turbulence
frequencies.
• Dynamic response, this occurs in structures sensible to dynamic effects, with one
or more natural frequencies within the interval of turbulence frequencies
4.2 I. 15
• Aerolastic response, it occurs when the structural response interacts with the
generation of wind loads producing aerolastic instability phenomena
For the purposes of these recommendations the forces produced by the wind interaction
and structural response, at a given direction, will be determined by considering the static
or dynamic response.
The static force will be calculated with the following expression:
Where:
qz is the base dynamic pressure, in Pa, on a reference surface Aref, at a height

z,
Cp is the pressure coefficient, dimensionless, acting on a construction or an

area of this, and
Aref is the reference area, in m2, on which the pressure acts
The sum includes all possible acting pressures on the reference area.
The procedure for the determination of this static thrust is denominated Static Analysis
which is presented in point 4.3.
In the case of dynamic response, the generated dynamic forces are evaluated by an
equivalent force Feq obtained by multiplying the static force Fes by the Dynamic
Amplification Factor, FAD.
For the determination of this equivalent dynamic force the Dynamic Analysis procedure
presented in point 4.4 will be used.
The pressures and forces evaluated with any of the two procedures will be calculated for a
reference height, as indicated in points 4.3 and 4.4 for each type of structure.
For the case of the aerolastic response, some general recommendations are given in point
4.4 and Appendix B.
4.2 I. 16
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3.1 LIMITATIONS
The static analysis is applied on the design of constructions and structural elements of
Type 1 ( point 4.1.4), as well as coating elements and their anchoring used on Type 1, 2
and 3 constructions, when these structures or coating elements are little sensible to the
wind turbulent action. This condition is satisfied when:
a) The ratio H/D ≤ 5, where H is the construction height and D is the base minimum
dimension, and
b) The structure fundamental period is smaller than or equal to one second.
For the case of closed constructions, isolated roofs and adjacent canopies and covers, it
is not necessary to calculate their fundamental period when the following conditions are
complied:
a) The construction height, H, is smaller than or equal to 15 meters.
b) The structure is not extraordinary exposed to any wind direction, that is to say it is
not on a promontory or terraplein.
c) The structure base is rectangular or formed for a combination of rectangles.

The H/D ratio is smaller than four for closed constructions and smaller than one for
isolated roofs, adjacent canopies and covers in cantilever, the clearance shall not
be greater than 5 m,
d) For closed constructions and isolated roofs, the slope of their roofs -inclined or
gabled - shall not exceed 20˚, and in roofs of multiple clearances shall be smaller
than 60˚; for adjacent canopies and covers, the slope shall not be grater than 5˚.
4.3.2 PRESSURE AND FORCES DUE TO WIND ACTION
4.3.2.1 Forces on closed constructions
For the purposes of this chapter, a closed structure is that formed by walls and roofs,
arranged in such a way to form a prismatic construction; such walls and roofs not
necessary are water proof, they can have openings, such as doors and windows, where
the wind flow can penetrate and generate internal pressure. Also, a structure of
rectangular base on which one side is completely open is considered closed with a
dominant opening in that side. When the construction has two walls or less, these shall
be designed as isolated elements.
The static forces exerted on the walls and roofs of closed structures, will be those resulting
from the acting pressures on their external and internal surfaces and shall be calculated
according to the following equation:
4.3 I. 1
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Fes = pz Az (4.3.1)
With:
pz = ( pe - pi ) for closed constructions (4.3.1.a)
or
pz = pn for the case in which the net pressure is applied (4.3.1.b)
Where:
Fes Is the static force resulting from the wind acting perpendicular on the surfaces or
construction structural elements, in N
pz pressure design at height z, in Pa
pe external pressure, in Pa (point 4.3.2.1.1)
pi internal pressure, in Pa (point 4.3.2.1.2)
pn net pressure, in Pa (points 4.3.2.5 to 4.3.2.8)
Az The structure area, or port of it, in m2, at height z, on which the design pressure acts,
pz, will correspond:
a) To one part of some of the construction surfaces; the design pressure that
corresponds to a given wind speed and direction, will be affected by the
external or internal pressure coefficient, Cpe or Cpi, which at the same time
depends on the structural shape.
b) To the construction surface or one structural element, projected on a wind
normal flow plan; the design pressure will be affected by the drag coefficient,
Ca, according to the construction or structural element shape.
c) To the surfaces indicated in the corresponding points when the force
coefficients are used, Cf, , or net pressure coefficients, Cpn, to evaluate the
design total force.
The total forces and overturning moments acting on a construction shall be obtained by
adding the effects of the external and internal pressures, or net pressures that are present
on the surfaces.
The signs convention for external and internal pressures adopted here, is that will be
positive when exerting a push and negative when exerting suction on the surface.
4.3 I. 2
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4.3.1 Sign convention for pressures exerted by the wind on a construction with
windward or leeward openings.
Figure 4.3.1 shows the adopted signs convention which is already considered in the
pressure coefficients values defined in this chapter. In this way, equation 4.3.1.a will be
applied maintaining the negative sign.
4.3.2.1.1 External Pressures
The external pressure pe, on one of the closed construction surfaces will be calculated
using the following equation:
pe = Cpe KA KL qz (4.3.2)
Where:
pe external pressure, in Pa
Cpe external pressure coefficient, dimensionless
KA area size pressure reduction factor, dimensionless
KL local pressure factor, dimensionless, and
qz dynamic pressure at wind base, in Pa, calculated according 4.2.5.
The values of factors KA and KL, as well as the way they are applied are described farther
on in this same point.
In Tables 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 the external pressure coefficients, Cpe, are provided for
closed construction walls and roofs with rectangular base. If other values of Cpe are
adopted, these shall be justified based on analytical, experimental results or presented on
specialized literature.
The parameters referred in these tables are shown in Figure 4.3.2 and Figure 4.3.3, in
which is important to observe that the walls denomination depends on the direction the
4.3 I. 3
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
wind acts. The reference height for which qz is calculated will be the average height, ,
for leeward side walls and roof. For windward wall, the pressure will change with height
according to 4.2.5. The external pressure coefficient values for structures which are not
closed rectangular base will be given in point 4.3.2.5 to 4.3.2.12.
When the Cpe value is positive, that means a push on the involved area; when negative it
will be suction.
Table 4.3.1 EXTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS, Cpe FOR WINDWARD (MB) AND LEEWARD (MS)
WALLS OF CLOSED RECTANGULAR BASE CONSTRUCTIONS
NOTES:
1. This table is applied with the aid of figure 4.3.2
2. For intermediate values of d/b and y, the values of coefficient Cpe, can be linearly
interpolated
Table 4.3.2 EXTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS, Cpe FOR CLOSED RECTANGULAR BASE
CONSTRUCTIONS LATERAL WALLS ZONES (ML)
NOTES:
1 This table is applied with aid of figure 4.3.3
2. The horizontal distance will be determined as function of the construction height, h , which shall be
calculated according to Figure 4.3.2.
4.3 I. 4
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.3 (a) EXTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS, Cpe FOR CLOSED RECTANGULAR BASE
CONSTRUCTIONS ROOF ZONES. WINDWARD COVERS (CB) FOR y ≥10˚
NOTES applied to Tables 4.3.3(a), (b) and (c) which are used together with Figures 4.3.2 and Figure
4.3.3.
1. In the cases were two values of coefficient Cpe are shown, the roof shall be designed for the
most unfavorable, since due to the wind turbulence, the roof can be subjected to positive or
negative pressures. Likewise, it shall be considered the different combinations between
external and internal pressures in order to select the most adverse condition for the design.
2. If it is required pressure coefficient values corresponding to intermediate values of y, and the
ratio, a lineal interpolation can be performed which will be carried out among values of
the same sign.
4.3 I. 5
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.3 (b). EXTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS, Cpe FOR CLOSED

RECTANGULAR BASE CONSTRUCTIONS ROOF ZONES. WINDWARD (CB) AND
LEEWARD (CS) COVERS FOR γ ≤10˚, TRANSVERSAL COVERS (CT) FOR SHED OR
GABLE ROOFS AND ANY ANGLE γ
NOTES:
1. The values in parenthesis are provided to perform the corresponding interpolations.
2. The last column cases will be analyzed in an independent way and the most critical condition
will be selected for the design.
3. y’ is the slope angle for the transversal cover.
4.3 I. 6
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.3 (c) EXTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS, Cpe FOR CLOSED

RECTANGULAR BASE CONSTRUCTIONS ROOF ZONES. LEEWARD COVERS (CS)
COVERS FOR y ≥10˚, TRANSVERSAL COVERS (CT) WITH HIP ROOFS AND ANY
ANGLE y .
4.3 I. 7
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4.3.2 Closed base construction parameters definition.
4.3 I. 8
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4.3.3 Lateral walls zones definition to apply external pressure coefficients
Following factor KA and KL values are specified, related to equation 4.3.2
- Pressure reduction factor by size area, KA
The KA values are indicated in Table 4.3.4 and they will be applied only to external
pressures; it can be observed that the factor depends on the design tributary area. For the
non considered cases, as well as for the silos walls, cylindrical tanks and isolated roofs,
the KA values are equal to one.
Table 4.3.4 REDUCTION FACTORS, KA FOR ROOFS AND LATERAL WALLS.
NOTE: For intermediate values of the tributary area, A the KA values can be linearly interpolated.
The tributary area is that on which the pressure design is considered to act; for example, in
the case of a coating fastener, it will be the tributary area that will hold, in the case of a
stringer, it will be that resulting from the product of space between beams or principal
columns by the separation between stringers, and for the main structure, its tributary area
will be that according to frames distribution or main load elements.
4.3 I. 9
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
The external pressure, pe will be affected by the KA factor when the following elements are
designed for a given construction:
- Main structure that supports roofs and lateral walls.

- Coating of those walls and roofs
- Coatings holding elements (such as stringers) and
- Holding systems of such coatings
As observed, this factor does not intervene in the windward and leeward walls design;
therefore, it will be equal to one.
- Local pressure factor, KL
The local pressure factor KL, shall be obtained from Table 4.3.5 for the affectation areas
indicated in Figure 3.4.4 (a), (b), and (c) and will affect only to external pressures, which at
the same time will be combined with the internal pressures. When more than one case of
the Table 4.3.5 applies, it shall be used the greater value of the KL factor corresponding to
such cases. For design, the values of KL that cause the most adverse effect shall be
considered. However, it will be 1.0 if the combination of external and internal pressures
results even more unfavorable.
The external pressure pe will be affected by the KL factor when designed the following
elements:
- roof and windward and leeward walls coatings

- coatings holding elements (such as stringers) and
- coating holding systems
When designed the construction main structure or leeward wall, this factor will also be
taken equal to 1.0.
Figure 4.3.2 and Figure 4.3.4 (a), (b) and (c), complement Table 4.3.5 to clarify all
variables and zones where the local pressure factor is applied. Likewise, in the Design
Aids Volume some cases of the Table 4.3.5 and Figure 4.3.4 (a), (b) and (c) are presented,
as well as an example of practical application in order to show how to use such table.
When one coating element area, or the tributary area of a support element of it, exceeds
the affectation areas indicated in Table 4.3.5, the KL factor shall be 1.0 for the remaining
area of such element.
When applying the local pressure factor, the negative limit of the product KL Cpe shall be -
2.0.
4.3 I. 10
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
For roofs with slopes lower than 10˚ and with parapets, the KL values for the CBA1 and
CBA2 areas (see Figure 4.3.4) for the surface exposed to the leeward side of the parapet
can be modified multiplying the values of the Table 4.3.5 by the reduction factor for
parapets, Kr given in Table 4.3.6.
Table 4.3.5 LOCAL PRESSURE FACTOR, KL FOR COATINGS AND SUPPORTS
Notes:
1. The negative pressure cases (suction) are alternative and are not applied simultaneously.
2. For low roof buildings adjacent to high buildings, and for high constructions that have walls with
sloped edges or projections, exposed to high turbulence conditions, a local pressure factor of 3.0
does not result conservative. These situations are out of the scope of this manual; therefore, a
specialized study shall be performed.
3. If a coating area is subjected to more than one case of those indicated in this Table, use the higher
value obtained for such cases.
4. The affectation area shall be compared to the tributary area to define in which area are applied the KL
values here indicated.
5. When (roof slope angle) is lower than 10 degrees, the roof affectation zone will be defined as it
would be horizontal, so that the local pressure factor will not be applied on the ridge cap zone.
6. The dimension “a0”, in m, and the references of areas are defined in Figure 4.3.4, (a), (b) and (c).
4.3 I. 11
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.6. LOCAL PRESSURE FACTOR Kr , FOR PARAPETS
Notes:
1. Hp is the parapet height from the cover level, while D is the lower horizontal dimension to the
construction in m.
2. For intermediate values, it can be used a linear interpolation.
3. These values are used to modify the values on Table 4.3.5.
Table 4.3.4 (a). Zones for local pressure factor determination, KL, for coatings and their supports. Wind
normal wind to generatrices.
4.3 I. 12
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
FIGURE 4.3.4 (b). Zones for local pressure determination, KL , for coatings and supports. Wind parallel
to generatrices.
Figure 4.3.4 ( c). Zones for local pressure factors determination, KL , for coatings and supports. Flat
roof constructions and heights higher than 25 m
4.3 I. 13
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3.2.1.2 Internal Pressures
Internal pressure, pi is calculated using the following formula
Where :
pi is the internal pressure, in Pa.
Cpi internal pressure coefficient, and
qz base dynamic pressure, in Pa (4.2.5)
It is important to point out that this internal pressure shall be considered constant over all
construction internal surfaces and, for designing the structures and their coatings, shall be
taken into account that the internal pressures act simultaneously with the external
pressures described in paragraph 4.3.2.1.1, having to select the most unfavorable
combination of them. Likewise, for its calculation the construction average height shall
be considered.
The different values of internal pressure coefficient, Cpi , are given in Tables 4.3.7 (a) and
4.3.7 (b); the first is applied when the surfaces allow small filtrations to the construction
interior – they are not impermeable - , while the second is applied when there are opening
of considerable size on the structure surfaces. In these tables are used the concepts of
permeability, openings, and nominal openings, which are defined next.
a) Permeability. If in the structure there are holes or clefts that allow penetrate the
wind flow to its interior, then, internal pressures are present that can reach
important magnitudes or act simultaneously with the external pressures producing
unfavorable conditions so that, shall be taken into account. For the purpose of this
chapter, the surface permeability is defined as the quotient of between the holes
and clefts areas result of normal tolerances of the construction and the total
surface area; in this permeability also can be included small opening as louvers of
windows. Since it is unpractical to evaluate this permeability, in Table 4.3.7 (a) are
included different cases that in a qualitative way, take into account permeability of
the exposed surfaces.
4.3 I. 14
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.7 (a). INTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, CPh , FOR CONSTRUCTIONS WITH
CLOSED RECTANGULAR BASE AND PERMEABLE WALLS
Permeability possible conditions CPh
1. One permeable wall, the other

impermeable
a) Permeable windward wall
b) Impermeable windward wall (cases 0.6
“a” and “b” of Figure 4.3.5 -0.3
respectively).
2. Two or three equally permeable walls,
and the others non permeable :
a) Permeable windward wall -0.1 or 0.2 according to the most
unfavorable combination load.
b) Impermeable windward wall (cases -0.3

“c” and “d” from Figure 4.3.5)
3. All walls equally permeable (case “e” -0.3 or 0.0 according to the most
from Figure 4.3.5) unfavorable combination load
4. Efficient sealed constructions with

-0.2 or 0.0 according to the most
windows that can not be opened
unfavorable combination load
(case “f” from Figure 4.3.5)
Figure 4.3.5 Examples showing different permeability cases in walls of buildings. The arrow indicates
flow direction.
4.3 I. 15
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.7 (b) INTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Cpi , FOR CLOSED BASE CONSTRUCTIONS AND
WALLS AND ROOFS WITH DOMINANT OPENINGS
NOTES:
1. The selected value of Cpi shall correspond to the surface with dominant opening. For example, for the
case that the dominant opening is located in the windward wall, when the ratio between the total area
of the dominant openings and the total area of the roof and other walls is 2, the Cpi shall be equal to
0.7 Cpe , where the Cpe value shall be taken from the Table 4.3.1 for windward walls.
2. Since in Tables 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 the Cpe changes according to the surface zone, for calculating the Cpi it
shall be located, in the surface in question, the centroid of the openings and take the value
corresponding to this position.
Figure 4.3.6. Examples showing different opening cases in building walls. The arrow indicates the
wind direction
b) Openings. They are considered as such, open doors and windows, louvers for air
conditioning and ventilation systems, and openings on coatings, among others.
c) Dominant openings. Are present on a surface when the sum of their opening areas
exceed the sum of the opening areas of any other surfaces; in these openings
permeability is not included. A dominant opening not necessarily is big and also can
be present as a result of a particular scenario when one opening is produced while
others are closed.
4.3 I. 16
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.7 (a) will be used when considered the case where openings are closed and
permeability predominates. On the contrary, Table 4.3.7 (b) will be used when openings
are open.
In regions inclined to cyclones, windows shall be considered as openings, unless they are
capable to resist the impact of a 4 kilograms wood piece with sectional area of 100 mm x
50 mm, hitting the window to a speed of 15 m/s. This requirement can be different in the
case of special structures, which shall justify the use of other values.
4.3.2.2 Construction of horizontal roofs with sloped ends
The external pressure coefficient, Cpe , for horizontal roofs with sloped ends (Figure 4.3.7)
for normal wind direction to the generatrices (ө=0˚ ) shall be determined based on Table
4.3.3 as follows: for sloped zone in windward (B) the values corresponding to windward
cover (CB) shall be used; for the horizontal central area (C) and the leeward sloped (S) the
values corresponding to the leeward cover (CS) shall be used with the same slope.
For wind direction parallel to generatrices (ө=90˚), such coefficient shall be obtained from
Table 4.3.3 (b), using the corresponding slope . For this case, zones B and S shown in
Figure 4.3.7 shall be considered as transversal covers (CT).
The walls external pressure coefficients shall be obtained from Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2,
The corresponding external pressures will be determined as indicated in paragraph

4.3.2.1.1, applying the local pressure factors, KL, indicated for the coatings design; in the
case of the roof, these local factors will be determined assuming that the roof is flat and
horizontal. Finally, the internal pressures will be obtained according to paragraph 4.3.2.1.2
For the calculation of pressures, except the windward wall, in all remaining surfaces shall
be considered the roof average height,
Figure 4.3.7. Horizontal roofs with sloped ends
4.3 I. 17
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3.2.3. Constructions with roofs of multiple spans
The external pressure coefficient values, Cpe , for multiple span constructions having
gabled or saw toothed shaped roofs , (see Figure 4.3.8, case (a) and (b), for wind
directions perpendicular to the generatrices (ө=0˚ and ө=180˚), shall be obtained from
Tables 4.3.8 and 4.3.9. For the case where two values are given, the roof shall be
designed for the most critical. The pressure values shall be calculated for the roof average
heigh , except for windward wall.
TABLE 4.3.8 EXTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Cpe , FOR CONSTRUCTION WITH GABLE ROOFS
IN MULTIPLE SPAN
Table 4.3.9 EXTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Cpe, FOR CONSTRUCTIONS WITH SAW TOOTHED
ROOFS
Figure 4.3.8 (a) Gable roofs in multiple spans
4.3 I. 18
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4.3.8 (b) Saw toothed shape roofs
When the wind acts in perpendicular direction to the generatrices (ө=0˚ and ө=180˚), the
external pressure coeficient values for lateral walls shall be obtained from Table 4.3.2.
In parallel direction to the generatrices (ө=0˚ and ө=270˚), the external pressure
coeficients for roofs shall be obtained from Table 4.3.3 (b), but adding the value given by {-
0.05(n-1)} in the region from 0 to 1 from the windward upper edge; n≤4 is the total
number of spans.
When the wind acts in parallel direction to the generatrices (ө=0˚ and ө=270˚), the
external pressure coeficient values for windward and leeward walls shall be obtained fron
Table 4.3.1 as it applies. For this same direction, the external pressure coeficients for
lateral walls shall be obtained from Table 4.3.2.
The corresponding external pressures shall be calculated as indicated in paragraph

4.3.2.1.1, applying the local pressure factors, KL , indicated there for coating design; for the
roof, these local factors shall be determined considering it as flat and horizontal.
The internal pressures shall be obtained according to paragraph 4.3.2.1.2 and with Tables
4.3.7 (a) and 4.3.7 (b), except when there are dominant openings in the roof, where the
internal pressure coeficient shall be ± 0.8, whichever results the most unfavorable.
4.3.2.4 Circular arch cover constructions
Following is presented the procedure to obtain the design pressure in constructuction with
circular arch covers. It is important to indicate that this procedure applies when such
covers are supported by walls, as long as the height do not exceeds 3 meters, as shown in
Figure 4.3.9 (a).
a) External pressure for design of main structure
4.3 I. 19
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
The external pressure, pe , in circular arch covers as shown in Figure 4.3.9 (a) shall be
calculated as follow :
Where :
pe External pressure, in Pa
Cpe External pressure coeficient, dimensionless, and
qz Wind base dynamic pressure evaluated in h + HC (see Figure 4.3.9 (b)) according
with paragraph 4.2.5, in Pa.
In Figure 4.3.9 (b) is shown the coeficient Cpe as function of the normalized length L/HC
and for the case that wind direction is parallel to the genertrices. In table 4.3.10 (a) the
external pressure coeficients values are given for the case of wind with directon normal to
the generatrices.
Figure 4.3.9 (a). Circular arch cover constructions
4.3 I. 20
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4.3.9 (b) External pressure coefficient Cpe, for construction with circular arch cover. Wind
parallel to generatrices
Table 4.3.10 (a) EXTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Cpe FOR CONSTRUCTIONS WITH CIRCULAR
ARCH COVER, WIND NORMAL TO GENERATRICES
External Pressure Coefficient Cpe

Zones located
Height / span
along the
ratio Windward Central Zone Leeward
building
(B) (C) (S)
End 0.33 -0.67 -0.42

0.20 ≤ Λc ≤ 0.35
Intermediate 0.33 -0.38 -0.31
End 0.40 -0.54 -0.42

0.35≤ Λc ≤0.60
Intermediate 0.40 -0.46 0.35
NOTES:
1. The parameters used in this table, are shown in Figure 4.3.9, cases (a) and (c).
2. When the cover is similar to a circular arch, this table can be used; otherwise, a specialized
study shall be performed.
4.3 I. 21
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
3. If an atmospheric extractor is placed on the roof ridge caps or transom having a height at
least 5% smaller than the total roof height, 0.3 shall be added to the external pressure
coefficient corresponding to the central zone of the cover; for example, when the pressure
coefficient is equal to -0.67 in the central zone, it shall be substituted by (-0.67 + 0.3) = -
0.37. Such reductions shall not be carried out for wind directions parallel to the
generatrices since in this case, the fan has little effect on air flow and on the resulting
external pressures.
Figure 4.3.9 ( c ) Areas considered for the external pressure coefficients of constructions
with circular arch covers. Wind normal to generatrices.
The external pressures in the construction walls (Figure 4.3.9 (a)), are determined
according to paragraph 4.3.2.1.1 for closed rectangular base constructions; the roof
slope, , to be used will be the corresponding to the secant of the arch that joints the ridge
cap with the start.
b) Pressures for designing coating elements and secondary elements
The external pressures that take into account the local effects and are used to design the
cover coatings, their support elements and fasteners, are evaluated as:
Where :
pl Local pressure, in Pa
4.3 I. 22
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Cpl Local pressure coeficient, dimensionless, and
qz Wind base dynamic pressure, in Pa. (paragraph 4.2.5)
In no case the recommendations given in paragraph in 4.3.2.1.1 for the local factor KA and
KL shall be applied. The Cpl factor values are given in Figure 4.3.9 (d), where it observed
that these depend on the distance to the normalized edge, x/HC, and the ratio
which at the same time classifies the covers in Groups I and II. The parameters used in
this figure are shown in Figure 4.3.9 (a). These values do not depend on the wind
direction. The corresponding pressures will be calculated for the height h + HC. When the
circular arch covers have lateral walls, the pressures defined for closed construction shall
be used.
Figure 4.3.9 (d) Local pressure coefficient Cpl, for the coating elements of constructions with circular
arch cover.
c) Internal Pressure
This is calculated using the following equation :
4.3 I. 23
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
(4.3.6)
Where :
pi Internal pressure, in Pa
Cpi Internal pressure coeficient, dimensionless, its values are shown in Table
4.3.10 (b), and
qz Wind base dynamic pressure, in Pa. (paragraph 4.2.5)
Table 4.3.10 (b) INTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, CPI , FOR CONSTRUCTIONS WITH CIRCULAR
ARCH COVERS.
Height ( m) Windward opening Leeward opening
HC ≤ 3 0.51 -0.17
3 ≤ HC ≤ 9 0.6 – 0.03 HC -0.19 + 0.0067 HC
9 ≤ HC ≤ 15 0.33 -0.13
NOTES :
1. The values of this table are only applied when the structure has openings in any of the walls
(windward or leeward), which can be 15 to 25% of the surface area where they are located.
2. When the dominant opening is in a lateral wall for a given wind direction, the internal pressure
coefficient shall be determined from the (c) case of the Table 4.3.7 (b): lateral wall dominant opening,
taking into account the considerations indicated there.
3. For height grater than 15m, it is recommended to perform specialized study involving experimental
tests in wind tunnel.
When the main structure is designed, it shall be considered that the internal pressures act
simultaneously with external pressures or suctions (paragraph a) and in a constant way;
likewise, this will be the case with local suctions (paragraph b) to design coatings elements,
its support elements and fasteners. In both cases shall be selected the most unfavorable
combination. The internal pressure shall be calculated for height h + HC in any of these
cases.
4.3.2.5 Isolated Roofs
It shall be considered that the shed or gable isolated roofs and those inverted (for example,
umbrella), are divided in two halves (Figure 4.3.10), and each half is subjected to the net
pressure given by:
(4.3.7)
Where:
pn net pressure, in Pa
4.3 I. 24
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Cpn net pressure coeficient, which coresponds to Cpb in the windward part and to
CPS in the leeward, dimensionless.
KA pressure reduction factor due to area size, in this case is equal to 1,

dimensionless.
KL local pressure factor given in Table 4.3.14, dimensionless, and
qz Wind base dynamic pressure, in Pa according to paragraph 4.2.5.
In Tables 4.3.11 to 4.3.13 are shown the net pressure coefficient values on each isolated
roof half (windward or leeward). In the cases where two values are given, it shall be
selected the one that produces the most unfavorable conditions, considering the two
halves.
4.3 I. 25
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.10 Isolated roofs
4.3 I. 26
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.11(a) NET PRESSURE COEFFICIENT IN ISOLATED SHED ROOF FOR 0.25 ≤ h/d ≤ 1
NOTES ABOUT TABLES 4.3.11 TO 4.3.13

1. These tables are used together with Figure 4.3.10
2. In order to obtain intermediate values for roofs with slopes different to those indicated, it can be used
a lineal interpolation, which shall be only carried out among values with same sign. If there are not
values with same sign, there will be interpolated with a value of zero.
3. “Free below” means that the woods or materials stored under the roof obstruct less than 50% the area
of the transversal section exposed to wind.
4. “Obstructer below” means that 75% or more of the transversal section area is obstructed.
5. The lineal interpolation is allowed to intermediate obstruction values. The interpolation will be carried
out among values with same sign. If there are not values with same sign, the interpolation will be
carried out with a value of zero.
6. In all cases of Figure 4.3.10, when ө =90˚, Table 4.3.11 (a) shall be used with , except those
that comply with the conditions from Table 4.3.11 (b) following the same criterion of dividing the roof
in 2 halves at the wind direction.
Table 4.3.11 (b) NET PRESSURE COEFFICIENT IN ISOLATED SHED ROOFS ZONES WITH γ = ±
5° AND θ = 0° OR 180°, FOR 0.05 ≤ < 0.25, OR FOR ALL γ AND θ = 90°
NOTE: For determining the horizontal distance, see Figure 4.3.3.
4.3 I. 27
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.12 NET PRESSURE COEFFICIENT IN ISOLATED GABLE ROOFS FOR 0.25 ≤ h ≤ 1
Table 4.3.13 NET PRESSURE COEFFICIENT IN ISOLATED INVERTED ROOFS

FOR 0.25 ≤ h ≤ h/D ≤ 1
The resulting pressures will act, in all cases, perpendicular to the roof surface and shall be
calculated for the
When an isolated roof is supported by only one support (wall or column) in such a way that
has a behavior as cantilever roof, it could be used the coefficient indicated here, the
cantilever can be the whole roof or only one part of it, depending on the support location.
However, when the cantilever space exceeds 5 meters, also the pressures perpendicular
to the wind action will be calculated, as indicated in paragraph 4.3.2.7, and its behavior
shall be reviewed before this additional condition.
With the purpose to design the coatings and elements that support them, with the aid of
Figure 4.3.11 shall be applied the values of the net local pressure factor, KL, indicated in
Table 4.3.14 following in analog way the recommendations given in point 4.3.2.1.1 in
regard to external pressures.
4.3 I. 28
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4.3.11 Local pressure factors, KL, for isolated roofs
Table 4.3.14 NET LOCAL PRESSURE FACTORS, KL , FOR ALL COATINGS AND THEIR SUPPORTS, OF
ISOLATED ROOFS AND CANOPIES.
Case Description KL
Pressures on an area that is between 0 and 1.0a12

1 within a distance 1.0 a1 from the roof edge and , when 1.5
the roof has a slope of 10˚ or more, from the ridge cap.
Pressures on an area ≤ 0.25 a12 within a distance 0.5 a1

2 from the roof edge and, when the roof has a slope of 2.0
10˚ or more from the ridge cap.
Pressures on an area ≤ 0.25a12 within a distance 0.5 a1

3 from the windward roof edge with a slope smaller than 3.0
10˚
NOTES
1. Figure 4.3.11 complements this table to clarify all variables and zones where the local pressure factor
is used.
2. The affectation area shall be compared with the tributary to define in which area are applied the KL
values indicated here.
3. In cases 1 and 2 the inverted roofs are excluded.
4. If a coating area is covered for more than one case of Table 4.3.14, the greatest value shall be
selected.
4.3 I. 29
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3.2.6 Canopies and covers adjacent to closed constructions
The wind net pressure, pn acting on canopies and covers adjacent to closed constructions
which roofs have a slope angle of 10° or less, shall be calculated with the following
expression:
Where:
pn is the net pressure, in Pa,
Cpn is the net pressure coefficient, dimensionless
Ka is the pressure reduction factor by area size, in this case is taken equal to 1,
dimensionless.
KL is the local net pressure factor given in Table 4.3.14, dimensionless, and
qz is the base dynamic pressure, in Pa, (point 4.2.5).
Where indicated, the canopies and covers, free or partially closed by walls in their inferior
part, adjacent to closed constructions, shall be designed as much for a wind push
(positive) or suction (negative) net pressure. Note that Figure 4.3.12(a) corresponds to
free adjacent roofs at their lower part, while Figure 4.3.12 (cases “b” and “c”) to partially
closed roofs.
For wind direction normal to the adjacent wall (θ = 0°), the net pressure coefficient is
obtained from Table 4.3.15(a) or 4.3.15(b).
For the parallel direction, θ = 90° or 270°, the free below canopies and covers shall be
considered as an isolated roof and the net pressure coefficient is obtained as indicated in
point 4.3.2.5; in the case of partially closed canopies and covers Table 4.3.15(b) will be
used, but for the opposite directions indicated there (0°, 90° and 270° in the cases (b) and
(c) of Figure 4.3.12) will be also considered as isolated roofs having to obtain the
respective coefficients as indicated in point 4.3.2.5. In Tables 4.3.15(a) and (b) it is
considered that can exist an obstruction up to 75% of the cross section exposed to wind.
4.3 I. 30
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.15(a) NET PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Cpm IN FREE BELOW CANOPIES AND COVERS
ADJACENT TO CONSTRUCTIONS FOR γ ≤ < 0.5, ≥ 0.5 AND θ = 0°
(see Figure 4.3.12(a))
NOTES:
1. For intermediate values of , can be linearly interpolated.
2. hc is the height measured from the terrain level to the canopy or cover.
3. In this case, Lc is the canopy or cover length measured as indicated in Figure 4.3.12(a), in m.
4. In the case of coefficients with negative value, the smallest in magnitude will be taken (the smallest
absolute value, but maintaining its sign).
Table 4.3.15(b) NET PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Cpm IN PARTIALLY CLOSED CANOPIES AND COVERS
(see Figure 4.3.12, cases “b” and “c”)
NOTE: In this case, Lc is the canopy or cover length measured as indicated for cases (a), (b) and (c) of Figure
4.3.12, in m
For any wind direction, the net pressure shall be calculated for the wind speed value
corresponding to the average height of the building roof,
4.3 I. 31
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4.3.12(a) Covers or canopies adjacent to constructions
NOTE: This figure shall be used in combination with Tables 4.3.15(a) and 4.3.15(b)
Figure 4.3.12(b) and (c) Net pressure coefficient, Cpm in partially closed covers with hc/Lc ≤ 0.5
4.3.2.7 Cantilever roofs
For cantilever roofs and canopies, the acting pressure in transversal direction to the wind
flow, pv, in Pa, is calculated with the following equation:
Where:
Cpv is the vertical pressure coefficient, dimensionless,
4.3 I. 32
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Cdv is the vertical dynamic amplification factor, dimensionless, and
qH is the base dynamic pressure of wind calculated according to point 4.2.5, at

the cantilever roof height, H, in Pa.
The coefficient Cpv is calculated as follows:
Where the dimensions xv and Lv, in m, are shown in Figure 4.3.13
The factor Cdv, dimensionless, will be calculated as follows:
a) If the span is greater than 15 m:
b) For the other cases, Cdv = 1.0, except for n1,y < 0.5 Hz, in such case these
recommendations do not apply, having to appeal to wind tunnel essays.
In the previous equations:
VH is the design speed calculated at the height H of the cantilever, in km/h,
IH is the turbulence index, calculated as indicated in point 4.4.4.1, at the height H of

the cantilever, and
n1,y is the natural frequency of vibration in flexure, transversal direction to wind flow, in
Hz.
4.3 I. 33
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4.3.13 Cantilever roof or canopy
4.3.2.8 Isolated billboards and walls
The net pressure, pn, on flat isolated rectangular billboards or isolated walls shall be
obtained using the following equation (Figure 4.3.14):
Where:
Cpn is the net pressure coefficient acting normal to the wall or billboard surface,
obtained from Tables 4.3.16 [from (a) to (d)] and with Figure 4.3.14 and
Figure 4.3.15, dimensionless,
Kp is the pressure reduction factor by porosity, dimensionless; this factor is

given by: [1 – (1 - 2] where is the solidity ratio of the billboard or wall,
is the solid area ratio between the total area of the billboard or wall surface,
dimensionless, and
qz is the base dynamic pressure of wind calculated according to point 4.2.5 at

the height H of the billboard or wall, in Pa.
When applied the Cpn, the resultant force will act normal to the billboard or wall surface,
without invert the wind direction. It shall be considered that the application point of such
resultant force is located at the half of the billboard height (H – h/2), or wall (H/2), and a
horizontal eccentricity “e” defined in Table 4.3.16, according to the. Likewise, it will be
considered that the billboard or wall thickness is very small compared with its other two
dimensions.
4.3 I. 34
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.16(a) NET PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Cpn, FOR ISOLATED BILLBOARDS AND WALLS, θ = 0°
Table 4.3.16(b) NET PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Cpn, FOR ISOLATED BILLBOARDS AND WALLS, θ = 45°
Table 4.3.16(c) NET PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Cpn, FOR BILLBOARDS AND ISOLATED WALLS, θ = 45°
(*) When a billboard or wall forms a corner extended more than 1h, the Cpn, for a distance from 0 to h will be
equal to 2.2 for a billboard and for a distance from 0 to 2H will be equal to 1.8 for a wall.
Table 4.3.16(d) NET PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Cpn, FOR ISOLATED BILLBOARD AND WALLS, θ = 90°
(*) Take the values of Cpn with the same sign.
4.3 I. 35
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3 I. 36
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3.2.8 Silos and cylindrical tanks
The expressions recommended next are valid for silos or isolated tanks; also can be
applied to groups of them when separated by a distance greater than two times the
diameter, on the contrary shall be consulted an specialist. The external pressure, pe, for
the design of walls or side walls and roofs of silos and cylindrical tanks [Figure 4.3.16(a)]
shall be calculated with:
Where:
Cpe is the external pressure coefficient calculated depending if dealing with wall
or silo roof or cylindrical tank, dimensionless,
KA is the pressure reduction factor by area size, dimensionless,
KL is the local pressure factor, and
qz is the base dynamic pressure, in Pa, determined according to point 4.2.5.
The factor KA will be used in the construction roofs or covers according to point 4.3.2.1.1;
for walls or perimetric walls, this factor will be equal to one.
Factor KL given in Table 4.3.5, will be applied to the windward edges zone of the roofs
when the roof slope is smaller than or equal to 30°, when greater than 15°, this factor will
be applied on a zone close to the cone top. The areas of such zones are shown in Figure
4.3.16(b). The local pressure factor shall be taken equal to 1.0 for the tank or silo walls.
In the case of the roofs of silos tanks and cylindrical tanks, the external pressure
coefficient, Cpe, will be obtained from Figure 4.3.16(b), where it is observed that this
coefficient is applied when the roof slope, γ, is between 0° and 30°. For greater values it is
recommended to use results from experimental tests in wind tunnel or literature on this
subject.
Finally, the external pressure coefficient for walls or side walls varies with angle β [Figure
4.3.16(a)] according to the expression:
Where:
Ks = 1.0 for Cpe ≥ -0.15
4.3 I. 37
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
KS = 1.0 -0.55 [Cpe + 0.15]log10(he/b) for Cpc < -0.15,
Cpc = -0.5 + 0.4 cosβ + 0.8 cos2β + 0.3cos3β – 0.1cos4β – 0.05cos5β, and
Β is the angle between the wind direction and a point on the silo or circular
tank wall [Figure 4.3.16(a)].
The coefficient Cpc, corresponds to the he/b unit value and is corrected by K, for other
values of this ratio.
Coefficient Cpc is valid for silos and tanks placed at terrain level or supported by columns
which height is not greater than that of them, he [Figure 4.3.16(a)]. However, he/b ratio
shall be in the interval from 0.25 to 0.40. For the case of wall, pressures will be calculated
for the speed corresponding to height z; for the roof pressure, will be considered.
The drag force, Fa, in N, shall be considered for the global design of silos and tanks (as
much those placed at terrain level as those elevated) will be calculated with expression:
Where the dimensions b and he are defined in Figure 4.3.16(a) and (b), and the base
dynamic pressure (point 4.2.5) is calculated at height .
For the lower surface of elevated silos or tanks, the external pressure coefficient, Cpe, will
be equal to 0.8 or -0.6, the most unfavorable. For silos or tanks elevated at least one third
of their height (he), there will be used the previous values of Cpe, linearly interpolated with a
value of 0.0, according with the ratio between the height above the natural terrain and the
construction height.
For the calculation of pressure at the lower surface, the height will be taken. This
recommendation can be applied for the case of closed elevated constructions (point
4.3.2.1).
4.3 I. 38
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4.3.16(a) External pressure coefficients, Cpe, for silos and cylindrical tanks walls
(0.25 ≤ he/b ≤ 4.0)
Figure 4.3.16(b) External pressure coefficient, Cpe, roofs of silos and cylindrical tanks (0.25 ≤ he/b ≤ 4.0)
When there are openings at the roof of silos or tanks, the recommendations for closed
constructions provided in point 4.3.2.1.2 shall be applied. In the case of silos or tanks
4.3 I. 39
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
without roof, the internal pressure will be determined based on the pressure coefficient
given by the following expression:
The corresponding pressure is evaluated for height .
It is not considered that the silos or tanks can have openings in the walls, when this is the
case, a specialist or experiment results presented in the literature shall be consulted.
4.3.2.10 Forces on individual members
The wind force exerted on individual elements directly exposed to wind flow, such as
structural profiles, which slenderness ratio (Le/b) is greater than or equal to 8, is calculated
with the following equations:
At the wind flow direction:
At the element axes direction:
Where:
Le is the element length, in m,
b is the element width, normal to the wind flow, in m,
bx is the element width, at the x direction, in m,
by is the element width, at the y direction, in m,
Fa is the drag force on the element at the wind direction, in N,
Fx, Fy are the drag forces, in N/m, on the element at the x, y axes, respectively
(see Figures A.1, A.2 and Table A.3 of Appendix A),
4.3 I. 40
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Ki is the factor that takes into account the slope angle of the member axis with
regard to the wind direction, dimensionless:
= 1.0 when the wind acts perpendicular to the element,
= sen2θm for members with cylindrical shapes,
= senθm for prismatic elements with sharp edges, that is to say, those
with a b/r ratio greater than 16,
θm is the angle between the wind direction and the element

longitudinal axis, in degrees,
is the radius of the cross section corners of a prismatic

element, in m
Kre is the correction factor by slenderness ratio for individual

elements (Table A.4 from Appendix A), dimensionless,
Ca is the drag coefficient for a member at the wind flow direction,

dimensionless (see Tables A.1 and A.2 from Appendix A),
CFx, CFy are the drag coefficients of a member at the x, y axes

direction, respectively, dimensionless (see Figures A.1, A.2
and Table A.3 from Appendix A), and
qz is the wind base dynamic pressure, in Pa, according to point

4.2.5 and for a height z equal to the height where the mean
point of the element length is located.
4.3.2.10.1 Open structures only in one plan
This type of structures are integrated by several individual elements (structural profiles or
cylindrical or prismatic sections with sharp or rounded edges) arranged in only one plan
normal to the wind direction, as lattices or frames (see Figure 4.3.17). The wind force, in
N, on the construction of this type is obtained according with the following cases:
a) For 0.2 < < 0.8 and 1/3 < (b/Lec) < 3:
Where:
4.3 I. 41
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
is the effective solidity ratio for open structure, dimensionless; given as:
= for flat sides elements
1.75
= 1.2 for circular cross section
is the solidity ratio of the structure, defined as the solid area ratio, on which the
wind acts, between the total area defined by the exposed surface periphery,
b is the structure width (see Figure 4.3.17), in m,
Lec is the structure length (see Figure 4.3.17), in m,
Ca = 1.2 + 0.26 (1 - ), is the structure drag coefficient, dimensionless, and
qz is the wind base dynamic pressure, in Pa; obtained according with what is specified
in point 4.2.5 and the height z equal to the height where the mean point of the
structure width is located.
Figure 4.3.17 Dimensions b and Lec
b) For all other cases, the wind force will be calculated as the sum of the forces acting
on each one of the members, taking into account that specified in point 4.3.2.10. In
this case, a structure with columns and open beams can be made to form a lattice
flat plan; each one of these parts could be analyzed separately.
Three dimension lattices could be considered as multiple structures, according to

the following point, or consult particular references or the opinion of a specialist.
4.3.2.10.2 Multiple open structures
In structures integrated by a series of similar open and parallel structures, the force on the
second and subsequent ones will be equal to that calculated for the windward structure
according to point 4.3.2.10.1, affected by the protection factor, Ke, which is obtained from
Tables 4.3.17 and 4.3.18.
4.3 I. 42
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.17 PROTECTION FACTOR, KE, FOR MULTIPLE OPEN STRUCTURES, WITH WIND
PERPENDICULAR TO THE PLAN OF THE STRUCTURES (θ = 0°)
Table 4.3.18 PROTECTION FACTOR, Ke, FOR MULTIPLE OPEN STRUCTURES, WITH WIND AT 45° OF
THE PLAN OF THE STRUCTURES (θ = 45°)
NOTES ON TABLES 4.3.17 AND 4.3.18.

1. σ is the spacing factor defined as the ratio of the separation(s) of the structures by the width of the
structure projected perpendicular to the wind direction (s/b).
2. For intermediate values of and σ lineal interpolation is allowed.
4.3.2.10.3 Isolated lattice towers
The values of the drag coefficient Ca, for isolated lattice towers with different arrangements
are shown in Tables 4.3.19 to 4.3.21. It is important to point out that the towers
considered in this point are isolated and do not include lattice towers used as supporting
structures of electric energy transmission, inasmuch as their behavior is different to those
isolated ones for interacting with conductor cables. In these cases the specialist opinion
shall be consulted.
4.3 I. 43
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
The drag static force for the design of isolated lattice towers at the wind flow direction is
obtained for each section in which the same shall be vertically divided; a minimum of 10
sections shall be used. Thus, this force is calculated with equation:
Where:
Fat is the drag force on the considered section acting at the wind direction, in N,
Cat is the drag coefficient of the considered section at the wind flow direction;
obtained from Tables 4.3.19 to 4.3.21, as the case may be, dimensionless.
AAl is the area of the elements of the considered element frontal face projected
perpendicular to the wind direction, in m2,
qz is the base dynamic pressure given in point 4.2.5 and calculated at the
height zta where the mean point of the section vertical length is located, in
Pa.
Table 4.3.19 DRAG COEFFICIENT, Ca, FOR LATTICE TOWERS. SQUARE AND EQUILATERAL
TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION WITH FLAT SIDES MEMBERS
NOTES ON TABLES 4.3.19 TO 4.3.21:

1. is the frontal face solidity ratio defined as the quotient of the solid area of the members of this face
by the total area that delimits them.
2. b is the average diameter of circular section elements, in meters.
3. VD is the wind design speed (point 4.2), in m/s.
4. For intermediate values of bVD, lineal interpolation is allowed.
5. Take into account that the average diameter and design speed are those corresponding to the mean
height of the considered section.
4.3 I. 44
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.20 DRAG COEFFICIENT, Ca, FOR LATTICE TOWERS. SQUARE CROSS SECTION WITH
CIRCULAR CROSS SECTION MEMBERS
Table 4.3.21 DRAG COEFFICIENT, Ca, FOR LATTICE TOWERS. EQUILATERAL TRIANGULAR CROSS
SECTION WITH CIRCULAR CROSS SECTION MEMBERS
If the slenderness ratio, H/b, is greater than 5, or if the first period is greater than 1s,
besides the static effects, it shall be taken into account the dynamic effects according with
that stated in point 4.4 (Dynamic analysis); H and b are the total height and the average
width of the lattice tower, respectively.
4.3 I. 45
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3.2.11 Chimneys and towers
The static net pressure, pn, due to wind flow on the chimney or tower, is calculated with the
expression:
Where:
Ca is the drag coefficient obtained from Table 4.3.22 or 4.3.23, as the case
may be, dimensionless,
Kre is the correction factor by slenderness ratio for the structure total height,
dimensionless, according to Table A.4, Appendix A, and
qz is the base dynamic pressure, in Pa, obtained according with that indicated
in point 4.2.5.
Table 4.3.22 DRAG COEFFICIENT, Ca, FOR ROUND SHAPES
NOTES:
1. b is the structure average diameter or width, in m.
2. VD is the design wind speed (point 4.2) valuated at the total height and in m/s.
3. For intermediate values of bVD, lineal interpolation is allowed.
4. For smooth circular cross section or polygonal with more than 16 sides cross section where bVD>10
2
m /s, the drag coefficient will be selected in the following way:
4.3 I. 46
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Ca = 0.5 for hr/b≤0.00002

Ca = 1.6+0.105 ln (hf/b) for hr/b>0.00002
Where:
hr is the average height of the surface roughness, and
b in this case, external diameter
5. Some characteristic values of hr in mm are presented next:
Glass, plastic: 0.0015
Steel: galvanized 0.15; light 2.5; heavy 1.5
Concrete, new and smooth 0.06, new and rough 1.0
Painted metal: 0.003 to 0.03
Table 4.3.23 DRAG COEFFICIENT, Ca, FOR PRISMATIC SHAPES WITH SHARP EDGES
The drag force will be determined multiplying the net pressure by the chimney or tower
area projected on a vertical plan.
4.3 I. 47
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
If the slenderness ratio, H/b, is greater than 5 or if the fist period, at the wind direction, is
greater than 1s, besides the static effects, the dynamic effects shall be taken into account
as established in point 4.4 (Dynamic analysis); H and b are the total height and the
average width of the chimney or tower, respectively.
With the purpose to design the chimney or tower walls with circular cross section, the local
response of one unitary height section of the chimney or tower shall be reviewed before
the radial distribution of pressures. The radial pressure originates the appearance of
bending stresses at the cross section plan of the chimney and can be determined following
the outlines for walls of silos and cylindrical towers (see point 4.3.2.9).
The particular recommendations for the design of chimneys in general can be consulted in
Chapter C.2.7 Chimneys, of this same Civil Works Design Manual and in the references of
Volume of Comments.
4.3.12 Telecommunication towers and fittings
In this point is stated the procedure to obtain the design static forces, at the wind flow
direction, in telecommunication towers and their fittings.
For the case of towers, if the slenderness ratio, H/b is greater than 5 or if the first period is
greater than 1s, besides the static effects, the dynamic effects shall be taken into account
as stated in point 4.4 (Dynamic analysis); H and b are the total area and average width of
the tower, respectively.
4.3.1.12.1 Telecommunication towers
The static force for the design of these structures is obtained for each section in which the
same are vertically divided; a minimum of ten sections shall be used. So, such force is
calculated with equation:
Where:
Fat is the drag force at the considered section, acting at the wind direction, in N,
Cat is the drag coefficient for the considered section, at the wind flow direction;
it is obtained as specified in this point or based on wind tunnel tests,
dimensionless,
AAl is the area of the front face members of the considered section, projected
perpendicular to the wind direction, in m2, and
4.3 I. 48
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
qzta is the base dynamic pressure given in point 4.2.5 and calculated at the
height zta where the mean point of the section vertical length is located, in
Pa.
The drag coefficients recommended for this type of structures are the following.
4.3.2.12.1.1 Tower sections without fittings
The drag coefficient, Cat, for the tower sections without fittings, is obtained from Tables
4.3.19 to 4.3.21, as the case may be, doing Cat = Ca. The solidity ratio will be taken for
each section in question and with the corresponding average width.
4.3.2.12.1.2 Tower sections with fittings
The drag coefficient, Cate, for the tower sections with fittings will be calculated as follows:
a) When the fittings are symmetrically installed with regard to all tower faces of the
considered section, their projected area could be added to the projected area of the
tower members in the considered section and will be taken Cat = Ca.
b) When the conditions of previous point a) are not applicable, the drag coefficient,
Cate, will be calculated as follows:
Where:
Cat is the drag coefficient for the tower section without fitting, dimensionless,
and
ΔCat is the additional drag coefficient due to fitting located in one face or within
the tower, dimensionless, calculated with the following equation:
Where:
Cau is the drag coefficient for the isolated fitting that, due to the absence
of wind tunnel data, can be obtained from Tables A.1 and A.2 or
from Figure A.1 of Appendix A, where Cau = Ca, as it may apply,
dimensionless,
Kre is the correction factor by slenderness ratio of the fitting,

dimensionless,
4.3 I. 49
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
For straight fittings with slenderness ratios smaller than 40, the Kre is
given in Table A.4 of Appendix A. For all other cases, this factor will
be equal to 1.0.
Kin is the correction factor by interference, (see point 0), dimensionless,
Aa is the are of any fitting located in the considered section. For a

straight fitting, Aa will be taken as Leb, where Le is the fitting length
and b is the fitting diameter or width, in m2, and
AAl is the projected area of the tower structural elements in the

considered section and without fittings, in m2.
In this case, equation 4.3.19, the value of Cat = Cate.
4.3.2.12.1.3 Correction factor by interference
The corrector factor by interference, Kin, dimensionless, will be calculated as follows:
a) For fittings located in the tower face:
i) In a square tower face [see Figure 4.3.18(a)]:
ii) In a triangular tower face [see Figure 4.3.18(b)]:
b) For lattice fittings within the lattice of the tower:
i) Within a square tower [see Figure 4.3.18(c)]:
ii) Within a triangular tower [see Figure 4.3.18(d)]:
c) For cylindrical fittings within the tower:
i) Within a square tower [see Figure 4.3.18(e)]:
4.3 I. 50
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
ii) Within a triangular tower [see Figure 4.3.18(f)]:
Where:
is the solidity ratio of the tower section, defined in point 4.3.2.10.3,

dimensionless,
θa is the wind flow deviation angle with regard to the line that joins the
center of the tower cross section with the fitting center, in degrees,
a, c are constants, dimensionless, and
b/w is the ratio between the fitting average diameter and the average
width of the tower considered section, dimensionless.
For the previous cases b) and c), Kin = 1.0 can be considered.
4.3 I. 51
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4.3.18 Towers of square and triangular sections with fittings
4.3.1.12.2 UHF antennas
For this type of antennas, the design static force, at the wind flow direction, is obtained
with the following expression:
Where:
Fa is the drag force acting on the UHF antenna at the wind direction, in N,
Kre is the reduction factor by slenderness according to Table A.4 from Appendix
A.
For this type of antennas, the length will be taken as the double of the
antenna height, dimensionless,
Ca is the drag coefficient for the UHF antenna obtained from Table 4.3.24 and
with Figure 4.3.19, dimensionless,
4.3 I. 52
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
AA is the UHF exposure area, in m2, taking bD or bN (Figure 4.3.19) as the

corresponding width at the wind direction, and
qz is the base dynamic pressure given in point 4.2.5 and calculated at the
height z where the antenna centroid is located, in Pa.
Table 4.3.24 DRAG COEFFICIENT, Ca, FOR UHF ANTENNAS
NOTE: For other types of sections, specific information or the specialist opinion will be consulted
Figure 4.3.19 UHF antenna sections
4.3.2.12.3 Microwave antennas
The wind forces on the microwave antennas are described regarding to the antenna axis,
having as its origins the vertex of the same. The axial force Fam that acts along the
antenna axis, the side force Fsm that acts perpendicular to the antenna axis and the
moment Mm acting on the plan that contains the Fam and the Fsm are shown in Figure
4.3 I. 53
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3.20 with their positive sign convention. The values of the Fam, Fsm and Mm are obtained
with the following equations:
Where:
qz is the base dynamic pressure, in Pa, valuated as specified in point 4.2.5, at

the height z where the antenna centroid is located,
Gh is the dynamic response factor, will be equal to 1.0 when designed the
antenna and its connections, but will be equal to the dynamic amplification
factor, FAD, when designed the support tower; the FAD is defined in point 4.4,
Ca, Cs, Cm are the drag coefficients obtained from Tables A.5 to A.8 together with
Figure A.3 of Appendix A, as can be observed in such figure, these
coefficients are in function of the microwave antenna type and the antenna
slope angle regarding to the wind incidence, dimensionless,
Aa is the microwave antenna exposed area projected on the plan normal to the
wind direction, in m2, and
D1 is the microwave antenna diameter, in m.
Figure 4.3.20 Acting forces on a microwave antenna
4.3 I. 54
4.4 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
4.4.1 LIMITATIONS
The dynamic analysis is used to evaluate the action resulting from the dynamic interaction
between wind flow and structures pertaining to Type 2 and 3, defined in point 4.1.4. The
acting forces and pressures on some of the parts or subsystems such as wall sections or
covers shall be determined by the static analysis described in point 4.3. The dynamic
analysis procedure described in this point will be applied to calculate the wind equivalent
loads acting on structures sensible to the dynamic effects produced by the wind
turbulence; such structures have a lineal elastic behavior. In Figure 4.4.1 are shown a
flow diagram for this procedure.
If the structure period is greater than five second, this procedure is not applicable and an
expert on the subject shall be consulted.
Particularly, this method shall be used in the design of structures that comply with some of
the following conditions:
• The ratio H/D > 5, where H is the construction height and D the minimum
dimension of the base, both in m, or
• The fundamental period of the structure is greater than one second and smaller
than or equal to five seconds.
Some recommendations for the case of Type 4 structures, related with aerodynamic
instability are indicated in point 4.4.8.
4.4 I. 1
4.4 I. 2
4.4.2 DETERMINATION OF MEAN SPEED, V’D
In this point the mean speed V’D, in m/s, is defined, this corresponds to an average time of
ten minutes and will be applied to determine the dynamic response factor and in problems
of vortices appearance and aerodynamic instability. The mean speed will be determined
with the expression:
Where:
VR is the regional gust speed established in point 4.2.2, in km/h,
FT topography factor defined in point 4.2.4 and
F’rz exposure factor for the mean speed; it is determined according to point
4.4.2.1
The factors FT and F’rz will be evaluated according with the topographic characteristics and
site roughness where the construction will be founded.
4.4.2.1 Exposure factor for mean speed, F’rz
The exposure factor F’rz, considers the combined effect of the local roughness
characteristics and the speed variation with height; it is defined as follows:
Where:
z is the height measured from the terrain mean level where it is desired to
calculate the wind mean speed, in m,
is a coefficient, dimensionless, obtained from Table 4.4.1 and
α' is the exponent, dimensionless, of the speed variation with height, for each
terrain roughness category; it corresponds to an average interval of ten
minutes. When height is greater than 200 m, there shall be carried out
other specific studies guaranteed by experts on the subject.
4.4 I. 3
The values of and α’ are indicated in Table 4.4.1, for each terrain category defined in
point 4.2.1.
4.4.3 ACTING PRESSURE ON STRUCTURES, pz
The acting pressure on the structure, pz, in Pa, is obtained with the equation:
Where:
Cp is the pressure coefficient, dimensionless; the values of this coefficient are

specified in point 4.3.2, according to the structure shape, and
qz is the base dynamic pressure, in Pa, at a height z above the terrain level,
obtained according to point 4.2.5.
4.4.5 EQUIVALENT DYNAMIC FORCE AT THE WIND DIRECTION, Feq, FOR

PRISMATIC AND CYLINDRICAL STRUCTURES
The equivalent dynamic force, Feq, in N, is obtained, for a height above the terrain level, z,
in m, with the following expression:
Where:
pz is the acting pressure obtained with the expression 4.4.3, in Pa
Aexp exposed area projected on a plan perpendicular to the wind direction, in m2,
and
4.4 I. 4
FAD dynamic amplification factor, dimensionless, obtained for each structure in

particular, as indicated in the following points.
The dynamic amplification factor provides the maximum force produced by the wind
turbulence effects and the dynamic characteristics of the structure. It considers two
contributions on the structure response, the quasi-static part or bottom and the resonance
part.
4.4.4.1 Dynamic amplification factor for prismatic structures
This procedure only could be used if the following conditions are complied:
• The structure corresponds to one of the general shapes shown in Figure 4.4.2.
• The maximum response at the wind direction is given mainly by the contribution of
the fundamental mode of vibration, which will have constant sign. Therefore, the
contribution of superior modes of vibration is considered despicable.
The dynamic amplification factor for these structures, FAD is calculated with the expression:
Where:
zs is the reference height (see Figure 4.4.2), in m,
Iv(zs) is the turbulence index, evaluated at the reference height, zs and calculated
with expression 4.4.6, dimensionless
B2 is the bottom response factor, calculated with expression 4.4.7,

dimensionless,
R2 is the response factor in resonance, calculated with expression 4.4.9,

dimensionless, and
kp is the peak factor, calculated with expression 4.4.14, dimensionless.
Each one of the factors in expression (4.4.5) is defined in the following paragraph.
4.4 I. 5
zs = 0.6 h ≥ zmin zs = h1 + h/2 ≥ zmin zs = h1 + h/2 ≥ zmin
Figure 4.4.2 General shapes of structures contemplated in the dynamic analysis; on them
the reference height, zs, is defined
The turbulence index Iv(zs) represents the level or intensity of this at the wind flow and is
defined as:
Where zmax = 200 m and the values of the constants: α’ is obtained from Table 4.4.1 and,
, zmin and z0 are taken from Table 4.4.2; the value of is used in the expression (4.4.8.a).
4.4 I. 6
Factors B2 and R2 allow take into account the lack of pressure correlation on the structure
surfaces and the wind local turbulence effect in resonance with the mode of vibration of
the structure respectively.
The bottom response factor, B2 is calculated with:
Where:
b is the structure width, in m,
h is the structure height, according to Figure 4.4.2, in m, and
L(zs) length of the turbulence scale at the reference height, zs, evaluated with
expression 4.4.8, in m.
The length of the turbulence scale represents the usual size, in average, of the wind gusts.
For heights zs smaller than 200 m, it can be calculated with:
The values of zmin and are given in Table 4.4.2.
The response factor in resonance, R2, is determined by the following expression:
Where:
SL(zs, n1,x) is the wind power density, defined by expression 4.4.10,

dimensionless,
n1,x natural frequency of vibration of the structure at the wind direction, in

Hz
4.4 I. 7
Rh(ηh) and Rb(ηb) functions of aerodynamic admittance calculated with expression

4.4.11 and 4.4.12, respectively
ζt,x total damping ratio, calculated with expression 4.4.13, dimensionless.
The power density describes the wind turbulence distribution in a site in regard to
frequencies intervals.
Such density is determined with the following expression:
Where:
V’D(zs) is the mean speed evaluated at the height zs, according to point 4.4.2, in m,
and
L(zs) is the turbulence scale length, calculated with expression 4.8.
The functions Rh and Rb consider the speed fluctuations do not occur simultaneously on
windward and leeward surfaces, as well as their correlation on them.
The function of aerodynamic admittance, Rh, for the fundamental mode is calculated by:
Where:
The function of aerodynamic admittance, Rb is obtained by:
Where:
4.4 I. 8
The values of h and b were previously defined. The coefficients ηb and ηb are reduced
frequencies, dimensionless, function of the natural vibration frequency, η1,x at the wind
direction.
The total damping ratio, , is given by three components due to structural, aerodynamic
and associated damping with damping special devices.
Where:
There is an important variation in the values of damping ratio in structures subjected

to wind. When the structures are not sensible to dynamic effects, as those of the Types 1
and 2, the total damping ratio can be equalized to the structural one. If the Type 3
structures are very sensible, the designer could consult to an specialist about the need to
carry out specific studies to estimate the dynamic damping or reject it because of the great
uncertainty. Likewise, if the structure is provided with some mechanism for an additional
damping, its value shall be justified by particular studies, according to the selected
mechanism.
In Table 4.4.3 are shown some representative values of the structural damping ratio
The total damping is function of the type of footprint, mainly on structures such as
chimneys, monopoles and lattice towers and for its determination will be necessary to
consult to an expert.
The peak factor, kp is defined as the ratio of the maximum value of the response
fluctuations by its standard deviation; depends on the time interval, T, in seconds, used to
calculate the maximum response, and the interval of frequencies of this response.
4.4 I. 9
Table 4.4.3 REPRESENTATIVE VALUES OF THE STRUCTURAL

DAMPING RATIO
Structure type
Reinforced and prestressed concrete buildings 0.015
Steel buildings 0.010
Concrete and steel mixed structures 0.013
Reinforced concrete chimneys and towers 0.01
Welded steel chimneys without coating 0.002
Welded steel chimneys with coating 0.005
Steel chimneys with refractory coating 0.01
Welded lattice towers 0.003
Screwed lattice towers 0.005
When the response at the wind direction is associated with a distribution of Gaussian type
probabilities, the peak factor is expressed as:
Where:
T is the time interval used to calculate the maximum response, equal to 600 s,
and
v is the frequency of crosses by zero or mean ratio of oscillations, in Hz,

defined as:
Where the values of n1,x, B2 and R2 were previously defined.
4.4 I. 10
4.4.4.2 Dynamic amplification factor for cylindrical structures
This procedure is used when the structure corresponds to a vertical structure, with circular
cross section as shown in Figure 4.4.3, and its fundamental mode of vibration is with the
same sign.
Figure 4.4.3 General shape of a cylindrical

structure
The dynamic amplification factor, FAD, is calculated with:
Where:
Iv(zs) is the turbulence index, evaluated at the reference height, zs, and calculated
with equation 4.4.6, dimensionless
zs is the reference height (Figure 4.4.3), in m,
B2 is the bottom response factor calculated with equation 4.4.17,

dimensionless
R2 is the response factor in resonance calculated with equation4.4.18,

dimensionless, and
kp is the peak factor, calculated with equation 4.4.14, dimensionless.
4.4 I. 11
The definition of each factor is equivalent to that indicated in point 4.4.4.1.
The bottom response factor is calculated by using the equation:
Where:
D is the average diameter of the structure cross section, in m,
h is the total height of the structure, in m, and
L(zs) is the turbulence scale length, evaluated at the reference height zs, and
calculated with expression 4.4.8a and 4.4.8b.
When the cross section is variable, the diameter will be taken as the average of the
sections diameters to different heights.
The response factor in resonance, R2, is determined with equation:
Where:
SL(zs, n1,x) is the wind power density, calculated with 4.4.10,
n1,x is the natural frequency of vibration of the structure, in Hz,
KS(n1,x) is the size reduction factor calculated with 4.4.19, dimensionless,

and
is the total damping ratio, calculated with expression 4.4.13,

dimensionless.
The size reduction factor is calculated with:
4.4 I. 12
Where:
D is the average diameter of the structure cross section, in m
h is the structure total height, in m,
n1,x is the natural frequency of vibration of the structure, in Hz, and
V’D(zs) is the mean speed evaluated at the reference height, zs, according to point
4.4.2, in m/s.
The considerations recommended in point 4.4.4.1 are applied for obtaining the total
damping.
4.4.5 EQUIVALENT DYNAMIC FORCE AT THE WIND DIRECTION, Feq, FOR SELF
This point describes the procedure to calculate loads produced by the wind dynamic action
on self supporting lattice type structures, directly supported on the terrain. These loads
shall be calculated from the base dynamic pressure at the center of the sections in which
the structure is divided, up to the designer and according to the change of its solidity ratio.
It is recommended to use ten sections or panels as minimum.
For wind acting on any face of the tower, the design drag force shall be calculated by
equation:
Where:
Feq is the equivalent dynamic force, in N, parallel acting to wind direction and
variable with height,
qz base dynamic pressure of wind at height z, in Pa, obtained according to

point 4.2.5,
Cat is the drag coefficient, at the wind flow direction, obtained according with
points 4.3.2.10.3 or 4.3.2.12, dimensionless,
Aref is the area of all front face members, at a height z, projected on a

perpendicular vertical plan at the wind direction, in m2, and
4.4 I. 13
FAD is the dynamic amplification factor calculated according to point 4.4.5.1,

dimensionless.
4.4.5.1 Dynamic amplification factor for self supporting lattice towers
The dynamic amplification factor, FAD, for self supporting lattice towers is calculated with
equation:
Where:
B2 is the bottom response factor calculated with equation 4.4.22,

dimensionless,
Iv(zs) is the turbulence index at the reference height, zs, and calculated with
expression 4.4.6,
R2 is the response factor in resonance calculated with expression 4.4.23,

dimensionless,
kp is the peak factor calculated with equation 4.4.29, dimensionless,
CRG and CG are the corrective constants of modal shape; they are obtained by
equations 4.4.31 and 4.4.32 respectively,
FM is the mass correction factor calculated with expression 4.4.34,

dimensionless, and
zs is the reference height, for this type of structures is equal to the total height
of the tower (see Figure 4.4.4), in m.
The bottom response factor is obtained with:
Where:
b is the average width, in m,
4.4 I. 14
h is the structure height (see Figure 4.4.4) in m, and
L(zs) is the turbulence scale at the reference height, zs in m, and calculated with
equation 4.4.8.
Figure 4.4.4 Definition of b0, bh and h
The response factor in resonance is calculated with:
Where:
is the structural damping ratio, dimensionless, according to Table 4.4.3,
SL(zs, n1,x) is the wind power density defined by the expression 4.4.24,
dimensionless, and
Rh(ηh) and Rb(ηb) are the aerodynamic admittance functions, dimensionless,

obtained with expressions 4.4.25 and 4.4.26, respectively.
The power density evaluated at a reference height, zs is:
4.4 I. 15
The aerodynamic admittance functions are obtained with:
Where:
Where:
n1,x is the natural frequency in the fundamental mode of vibration of the

structure at the longitudinal direction of wind, in Hz, and
V’D is the wind design mean speed, in m/s, obtained according to point 4.4.2 for
a height zs.
The peak factor kp for these structures is calculated with:
Where:
4.4 I. 16
If a device is placed in one of the panels, in which the lattice tower was divided, the drag
coefficient value in this panel should be considered according to point 4.3.2.12.1.3.
The corrective constants of the modal shape are:
Where:
bh is the lattice structure width at the height h (see Figure 4.4.4), in m,
b0 is the projected width of the structure at terrain level (see Figure 4.4.4), in m,
and
α’ is the exponent, dimensionless, of the speed variation with height and

obtained from Table 4.4.1, for each terrain category.
The mass correction factor is:
With:
Where:
mtotal is the total mass of the structure, in kg,
mr is the generalized mass of the structure at the wind longitudinal direction, in

kg,
4.4 I. 17
λm is the coefficient that determines the variation of the modal shape with
height, dimensionless. Estimated values of this coefficient are:
λm = 2 for rectangular or square towers and λm = 1.75 for triangular towers,
m(z) is the mass per length unit of the tower, in kg/m, and
Φ1,x(z) is the modal configuration of the first mode at the wind longitudinal direction,
dimensionless.
4.4.6 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF DEFORMABLE COVERS WITH CONICAL SHAPE
Currently a great number of architectonic shapes for covers tensed by cables also called
deformable membrane or textile structures or tenso-structures that present a no lineal
geometric behavior. The design of this type of structures will be carried out by the
recommendations of experts on the subject and wind tunnel tests.
For deformable membrane roofs with conical shape, the dynamic effects can be quantified
by means of coefficients that make uniform the dynamic response for all nodes of the
analytical model that represents the cover, in such a way that, for design purposes it can
be considered that its dynamic response is obtained from applying, on such nodes, the
equivalent dynamic pressure, peq, defined in the following way:
For calculating the displacements at the cover nodes:
and for stresses in the tensile cables and fittings:
Where:
peq is the equivalent dynamic pressure, in Pa,
pm is the mean wind pressure, in Pa,
β*d and β*s are the dynamic coefficients at the cover nodes for the displacements
and stresses respectively, dimensionless, and
η*d and η*s are the no lineal response factor at the cover nodes that take into
account the ratio between the dynamic maximum no lineal response and
4.4 I. 18
the maximum static, for the displacement and stresses respectively,

dimensionless.
The mean wind acting pressure, pm on the exposure area of each node is
calculated with:
Where:
V’D is the wind mean speed evaluated for each height z of the corresponding
node and according to 4.4.2, in m/s, and
Cp is the pressure coefficient; in this particular case is obtained as

recommended in point 4.3.2.9.
The dynamic coefficients at the cover nodes are:
Where:
T0 is the initial tension at the cover cables, in kN/m, and
L is the length, perpendicular to the wind direction, of the clearance that

covers the membrane, in m.
The factors that take into account the no lineal behavior with regard to the ratio between
the dynamic maximum response and the static maximum response are:
4.4 I. 19
Figure 4.4.5 Geometry of the conical cover
For quantifying the dynamic effects on structures with other deformable cover shape, it is
indispensable to carry out wind tunnel studies.
4.4.7 EQUIVALENT FORCES PERPENDICULAR TO THE WIND ACTION, PERIODIC

VORTICES EFFECT
In the design of Type 3 structures, or structural elements with small cross section
compared with their length, that comply with some of the conditions indicated in point 4.4.1,
there shall be considered the general vibrations caused by alternating forces due to
vortices detachment and local vibrations of their cross section originated by such forces.
The calculation of forces caused by the local vibrations is out of the application of this
point; therefore, recommendations from experts on the subject shall be appealed. With
regard to forces originated by general vibrations, in point 4.4.7.2 is described a procedure
to calculate them and can be rejected if the following is satisfied:
Where:
Vcrit is the critical speed of periodic vortices appearance, in m/s, and
V’D(h) is the mean speed evaluated at the total height of the structure, h according
to point 4.4.2, in m/s.
4.4.7.1 Critical speed of periodic vortices, Vcrit
For the case of vibrations caused by the detachment of periodic vortices perpendicular to
the wind flow, the critical speed of them is defined as the wind speed in which the
4.4 I. 20
detachment frequency of the vortices is equal to the fundamental frequency of the

structure and is given by the expression:
Where:
b is the normal width at the wind analysis direction, or the external diameter in
cylindrical structures, in m,
n1,x is the natural frequency of the first mode of vibration of the structure at the
wind cross direction, in Hz, and
St is the Strouhal number, dimensionless, that depends on the geometric

shape of the structure and is equal to 0.12 for a square section and 0.2 for a
circular section.
4.4.7.2 Forces due to detachment of periodic vortices
The effect of the induced vibration by detachment of periodic vortices shall be calculated
by the inertia force per length unit, Fw(z), which acts perpendicular to the wind direction at
a height z and is given by:
Where:
Fw(z) is the inertia force per length unit perpendicular to the wind direction, at a
height z, in N/m,
n1,y is the natural frequency of the first mode of vibration at the wind cross
direction, in Hz,
m(z) is the structure mass per length unit at a height z, in kg/m
Φ1,y(z) is the fundamental modal shape of the structure, dimensionless,

perpendicular to the wind direction, normalized to 1 at the point with the
maximum modal amplitude, and
VFmax is the maximum cross displacement at wind flow, in m.
4.4 I. 21
4.4.7.3 Maximum cross displacement at the wind flow, YFmax
The procedure described in this point, to obtain the maximum cross displacement at the
wind flow, YFmax is only applicable to prismatic or cylindrical structures which are not
grouped or aligned. According to this procedure, the maximum cross displacement at the
wind flow is calculated with:
Where:
σy is the standard deviation of the cross displacement at the wind flow, in m,

and
kp is the peak factor, dimensionless; calculated with expression 4.4.53.
The standard deviation of the cross displacement at the wind flow is obtained with the
following expression:
Where the constants c1 and c2 are given by:
Where:
aL is the constant that limits the amplitude of the structure displacements,

obtained from Table 4.4.4, dimensionless,
is the ratio of total damping, similar to equation 4.4.13 but “y” direction,
dimensionless,
me is the structure equivalent mass per length unit, calculated with expression
4.4.49, in kg/m
4.4 I. 22
Ka is the aerodynamic damping factor dependent on the wind turbulence,

obtained with equation 4.4.51, dimensionless,
ρ is the air density, equals to 1.225 kg/m3,
Ca is the aerodynamic constant dependent on the structure or structural

element cross section. For cylindrical shapes, depends on the Reynolds
number, obtained from Table 4.4.4, dimensionless, and
h is the structure height or structural element length, in m.
The other variables were defined in the previous points.
The equivalent mass of the structure is calculated with:
Table 4.4.4 CONSTANTS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF

EFFECTS OF DETACHMENT OF VORTICES
The dimensionless Reynolds number, Re is calculated with the expression:
Where vc is the air kinematic viscosity which has an approximated value of 15 x 10-6 m2/s,
for an ambient temperature of 20°C. The other variables were already defined.
The aerodynamic damping factor is given by:
4.4 I. 23
Where Ka,max is obtained from Table 4.4.4 and function f(Iv) is given by:
Where Iv is the turbulence index obtained with equation 4.4.6 evaluated at the height
where the structure displacement is maximum.
The peak factor is calculated with the following equation:
NOTE: Arc tan is obtained in radians.
4.4.7.4 Recommendations to diminish the vibrations due to detachment of

periodic vortices
The amplitudes caused by the detachment of periodic vortex can be reduced when placing
aerodynamic elements (if 4πζt,ymc/ρb2 > 8), or additional damping elements to the structure
that modify its dynamic properties, for which specific studies or the opinion of an expert is
required.
4.4.8 AEROLASTIC INSTABILITY
Additional to the wind turbulence problems (point 4.4.4 and 4.4.5) and the possible
appearance of alternating vortices (point 4.4.7), possible aerolastic instability problems
shall be considered, particularly in Type 4 structures, produced when a structure is
displaced due to the force produced by the wind flow; the initial displacement causes, for
its part, a variation at the attack direction of such flow that generates increasing
successive movements of oscillatory or divergent character.
Because of the flow-structure interaction phenomenon complexity, it is hard to establish

practical recommendations to avoid its formation based on the current knowledge status.
The best way to study this type of problems is to appeal to wind tunnel tests. From a
critical speed increasing displacements can be originated due to aerolastic instability.
Therefore, due precautions shall be taken to reduce or prevent such instability is produced.
4.4 I. 24
The aerolastic instability problems can present several aspects within which are the
following:
a) Resonance with periodic vortices
This phenomenon represents one of the most frequent aerolastic instability ways,
mainly in slender prismatic or cylindrical constructions. In point 4.4.7 were
summarized the outlines for considering or evaluating this problem.
b) Instability by group effect of neighboring constructions
When there are structures which are close to each other, the distribution of wind
pressures on them is different than they are isolated or sufficiently apart from each
other. The prediction of possible instabilities caused by their proximity will be
determined by tests with wind tunnel models according with the recommendations
of specialists on the matter.
c) Galloping
In general, this problem of instability happens in very slender constructions with

rectangular cross sections with a flat face exposed to wind (see Figure 4.4.6) or
circular ones. These structures can present important cross displacements at wind
flow. Associated to this phenomenon are the great oscillations generated in the
cables of transmission lies covered by ice that modifies the shape of their original
cross section. In Appendix B is described a method to determined the speed of the
galloping problem start at different conditions of cross section and coupling.
d) Flutter
This instability phenomenon is shown when coupled two degrees of freedom of the
structure (flexure and torsion or rotation and vertical translation) and generate
increasing magnitude oscillations when modified the aerodynamic damping. This
problem is present in very flexible structures as suspension bridges, which study is
out of the scope of these recommendations.
4.4 I. 25
Figure 4.4.6 Cross section of a body subjected to wind flow

with an attack angle, θ
4.4 I. 26
APPENDIX A
4A FORCE AND DRAG COEFFICIENTS
4A.1 INTRODUCTION
In this appendix are specified the values of the drag and force coefficients for structures of
structural members with uniform cross section. For all the cases of Figures A.1 and A.2
and Tables A.1 to A.3, length is considered as infinite; therefore, when the slenderness
ratio of elements (length/width) is greater than or equal to 8, its corresponding drag or
force coefficient will be multiplied by the correction factor by slenderness ratio, Kre, given in
Table A.4.
Likewise, drag coefficients for microwave antennas are presented.
4A.2 CYLINDRICAL OR PRISMATIC SHAPED ELEMENTS WITH ROUNDED EDGES
The values of the drag coefficient Ca, for structures or structural members with cylindrical
or prismatic shape and rounded edges are obtained from Table A.1.
The cables can be treated as cylinders with smooth surface, but shall be taken into
account that can experiment small cross forces (uplift). For more information consult
Holmes, 2007.
4.A.3 PRISMATIC SHAPED ELEMENTS WITH SHARP EDGES
The values of the drag coefficient, Ca, for constructions or structural elements which cross
sections present sharp edges, except for rectangular sections, are obtained in Table A.2.
There will be considered as sharp edges when the b/r ratio is greater than 16 (see point
4.3.2.11).
4A I. 1
APPENDIX A
Table A.1 DRAG COEFFICIENT, Ca FOR CYLINDRICAL AND PRISMATIC ELEMENTS WITH ROUNDED
EDGES, INFINITE LENGTH
NOTE:
1. b is given in meters, VD shall be converted from km/h to m/s
2. VD is the design wind speed (point 4.2) evaluated a the total height of the construction on at the mean
point of the element, in m/s
3. For intermediate values lineal interpolation can be carried out
2
4. For smooth circular and polygonal cross sections with more than 16 sides, where bVD>10 m /s, the
drag coefficient will be selected in the following way:
Ca = 0.5 for hr/b ≤ 0.00002
Ca = 1.6+0.105 ln (hr/b) for hr/b > 0.00002
Where:
hr is the average height of the surface roughness and
b in this case is the external diameter
5. These cases can be considered as sections with sharp edges provided that their b/r ratio is greater
than 16, therefore, Table A.2 will be applied. However, the designer could opt for the more critical
drag coefficients
4A I. 2
APPENDIX A
4A.4 ELEMENTS WITH RECTANGULAR PRISMATIC SHAPE
The values of the force coefficients CFx and CFy, for structures or elements of them, with
constant rectangular cross section, are found in Figures A.1 and A.2.
4A I. 3
APPENDIX A
Figure A.1 Longitudinal force coefficient, CFx, for rectangular prisms of infinite length
4A I. 4
APPENDIX A
Figure A.2 Cross force coefficient, CFy for rectangular prisms of infinite length
4A I. 5
APPENDIX A
Figure A.1 is only applicable for angles of wind incidence between 0° and 15° with regard
to each direction parallel to the rectangle faces.
Figure A.2 contains maximum values of CFy, for angles of wind incidence between 0° and
20° with regard to each direction parallel to the rectangle faces, since for greater angles,
fluctuations to their value by turbulent flow can be presented.
For wind oblique directions greater than 20°, more detailed information or the opinion of a
specialist shall be consulted.
4A.5 STRUCTURAL PROFILES
The values of force coefficients CFx and CFy for sections of structural profiles are shown in
Table A.3. Angle θ that defines the wind direction in this table shall be measured
counterclockwise.
4.A.6 CORRECTION FACTOR BY SLENDERNESS RATIO
The correction factor by slenderness ratio, Kre, is obtained from Table A.4; this will be
applied when the ratio Le/b, of a structural member or a structure, is greater than or equal
to 8. If this ratio is smaller than 8, this condition is not applied.
Table A.4 CORRECTION FACTOR BY SLENDERNESS RATIO, Keq
NOTE: For intermediate values of Le/b can be linearly interpolated
In Table a.4 can be appreciated that, as the slenderness decreases, the correction factor
decreases too. This is because of the air flow around the construction or member ends
flows easier; therefore the average force magnitude decreases on the section.
4A I. 6
APPENDIX A
4A I. 7
APPENDIX A
4A.7 DRAG COEFFICIENTS FOR MICROWAVE ANTENNAS
Table A.5 DRAG COEFFICIENTS FOR MICROWAVE ANTENNAS WITHOUT REFLECTOR
NOTE: Ca, Cs and Cm are applied in equations 4.3.30, 4.3.31 and 4.3.32 respectively with the help of Figure
A.3
4A I. 8
APPENDIX A
Table A.6 DRAG COEFFICIENTS FOR MICROWAVE ANTENNA WITH REFLECTOR
A.3
4A I. 9
APPENDIX A
Table A.7 DRAG COEFFICIENTS FOR DRUM TYPE MICROWAVE ANTENNAS
A.3
4A I. 10
APPENDIX A
Table A.8 DRAG COEFFICIENTS FOR GRID TYPE MICROWAVE ANTENNAS
A.3
4A I. 11
APPENDIX A
Figure A.3 Types of microwave antennas and wind direction
4A I. 12
APPENDIX B
4B AEROLASTIC INSTABILITY AND SERVICE CONDITIONS
NOMENCLATURE
a Distance between centers of coupled cylinders, in m

Instability factor by galloping, dimensionless
Combined instability parameter, dimensionless
b Structure dimension defined in Table B.1, in m
b Cylinder diameter, in m
b Structure dimension at the transversal direction to wind flow, in m
Ca Drag coefficient, dimensionless
g Acceleration of gravity, dimensionless
h Structure height, in m
Iv(z) Turbulence index, evaluated at the height z, dimensionless
Kb Correction factor of modal shape by acceleration, dimensionless
kp Peak factor, dimensionless
me Equivalent mass per length unit, in kg/m
n1,x Natural frequency of vibration of the structure at the wind longitudinal
direction, in Hz
n1,y Natural frequency of vibration of the structure at the wind flow cross
direction, in Hz
R Square root of the response factor in resonance, dimensionless
Sc Scruton number, dimensionless
T Time in which the speed is averaged, in s
VCG Galloping start speed, in m/s
VCIG Galloping start speed by interference of cylinders, in m/s
Vcrit Galloping critical speed of periodic vortices, in m/s
V’p Wind design mean speed, in m/s
Xmax Structure maximum acceleration at the wind longitudinal direction, in
m/s
z Height measured from the terrain mean level, where the wind speed
is calculated, in m
zs Reference height, in m
4B I. 1
APPENDIX B
Greek symbols
βk Wind critical direction, in degrees
Φ1,x(z) Fundamental modal shape at the wind longitudinal direction,
dimensionless
ν Frequency of crosses by zero, in Hz
ρ Air density, in kg/m3
σx Standard deviation of the structure acceleration, in m/s2
ζest Structural damping ratio, dimensionless
4B I. 2
APPENDIX B
4B.1 AEROLASTIC INSTABILITY
4.B.1.1 Galloping
The galloping is characterized for being an aerodynamic instability way of only one
freedom grade being present purely transversal vibrations of translation.
In general, this effect causes the structure movement amplitudes are increased fast, when
the wind speed increases and the galloping phenomenon has started. The galloping start
speed, VCG, in m/s, can be obtained by the following expression:
Where:
n1,y is the natural frequency of the first mode of vibration of the structure at the
wind flow transversal direction, in Hz
b is the structure dimension, defined in Table B.1, in m
Sc is the Scruton number, dimensionless, and
aG is the instability factor by galloping. Some values of this factor are shown in
Table B.1 and can be used a value of 10 for those structures not mentioned
in such table.
The Scruton number is defined as:
4B I. 3
APPENDIX B
Table B.1 Instability factors by galloping
Where:
ζest is the structural damping ratio, dimensionless
me is the structure equivalent mass per length unit, calculated with equation
4.4.49, in kg/m,
ρ is the air density considered equal to 1.225 kg/m3, and
b was already defined in equation B.1.
For avoiding the galloping effect the following must be complied:
4B I. 4
APPENDIX B
Where V’D is the mean speed, in m/s, calculated as indicated in point 4.4.2 at a height
where expected the galloping or the oscillation maximum amplitude occurs.
On the other hand, if the following is complied:
Where Vcrit is the critical speed of periodic vortices appearance, calculated as specified in
point 4.4.6.1, in m/s, wind tunnel studies shall be carried out with the recommendations of
a specialist on the subject.
4B.1.2 Galloping in coupled cylinders
In coupled cylinders the galloping effect can be presented; the start speed in this case is
given by the expression B.1, but with the values of the parameters shown in Table B.2.
For avoiding this galloping type the following shall be complied:
Where VCG is the galloping start speed in coupled cylinders and V’D is the mean speed, in
m/s, calculated as indicated in point 4.4.2 at the height where it is expected the galloping
of the maximum amplitude of the oscillation is presented.
4B I. 5
APPENDIX B
Table B.2 Parameters for estimating the start speed of the galloping in coupled cylinders
NOTE: For intermediate values of a/b interpolation is allowed.
4B.1.3 Galloping by interference of two or more individual cylinders
This type of galloping is a self-excited oscillation between wind force and displacement
that can occur when two of more cylinders are very close among them but without coupling.
If the wind attack angle is in the interval of the wind critical direction, βk (see Figure B.1),
and if a/b < 3, the start speed of this type of galloping, VCIG (in m/s) can be estimated by:
4B I. 6
APPENDIX B
Where:
n1,y is the natural frequency of the first mode of vibration of the cylinder at the
wind flow transversal direction, in Hz,
b is the cylinder diameter, in m,
Sc is the Scruton number of the cylinder, obtained with expression B.2,

dimensionless,
is the distance between the centers of the cylinders (see Figure B.1), in m,
and
is the combined instability parameter, considered equal to 3.
This type of galloping can be avoided when coupling the cylinders, in such case the
galloping in coupled cylinders shall be reviewed.
Figure B.1 Geometrical parameters in the galloping by interference
4B I. 7
APPENDIX B
4B.2 SERVICE CONDITIONS
In this point a procedure to estimate the values of service parameters is described for a
structure under the wind attack that shall be compared with the corresponding limit values
given in Chapter C.1.2 of the Civil Works Manual or other specific recommendation. This
verification has the purpose that in the structure are not appeared inadequate performance
conditions of the functions for which it was projected, or the nonconformity of the
occupants of the same. As a guide, in this section the limit values for prismatic structures
discussed in point 4.4.4.1 are given; however, it shall have into consideration the
destination and function of each structure in particular.
4B.2.1 Maximum displacement at the longitudinal direction
In Table B.3 are shown a guide of the limit values of displacements for the design, for
service conditions. This Table identifies the deflection limits related with those actions with
an excess annual probability of 0.05 (return period of 20 years). These limits have
uncertainty and are not applicable in all situations; therefore, they have been considered
only as a guide. For the case of these recommendations, the designer could opt for
reviewing these limits for the speeds associated with return periods of 10 or 50 years,
provided in the isotach maps of point 4.2.2.
Service Applied Service limit condition

Element Effect to control
parameter action (1) (2)
Cover supporting elements
Elements that support Deflection at the
Cracking G and Ws Span/400
fragile coatings span center
Element that support Defection at the
Deformation G and Ws Span/120
metallic coatings span center
Roofing and its supports
Roofing with plaster Deflection at the
Cracking G and Ws Span/200
finishing and supports span center
Structural elements
Deflection at its
Columns Side displacement Ws Height/500
upper end
Porch frames Damages in the Deflection at its
Ws Spacing/200(3)
(cross deformation) cover upper end
Threshold beam Jam of doors and Deflection at the Span/240
Ws
(cross deformation) windows span center but < 12 mm
Discerned Deflection a the
Ws Height/150
Wall in general movement half of height
(loaded faces) Supported Deflection at the
Ws Height/1000
elements shaking half of height
Coating of walls (4)
Fragile coatings
Deflection at the
(ceramic) of the loaded Cracking Ws Height/500
half of height
face
Masonry walls (on the Notable cracking Deflection at the Ws Height/600
4B I. 8
APPENDIX B
Service Applied Service limit condition

Element Effect to control
parameter action (1) (2)
plan) half of height
Masonry walls (loaded Deflection at its
Notable cracking Ws Height/400
face) upper end
Plaster walls (on the Deflection at the
Damage to coating Ws Height/300
plan) half of height
Plaster walls (loaded Deflection at the
Damage to coating Ws Height/200
face) half of height
Deflection at the
Glazing systems Twist Ws Span/400
span center
Windows, facades, Damage of Deflection at the
Ws Span/250
curtain wall facades span center
Twice the free span
System of fixed glasses Damage to glasses Deflection Ws
among glasses (5)
NOTES:
1. G and Ws are the permanent and wind loads, respectively obtained for a speed with return period
from 10 to 50 years.
2. The span or height in the ratios used in the deflection criterion, are the free spacing among support
points.
3. The limit deflection of the porch type frames is based on the spacing of the supporting walls and on
the coating capacity to resist the shear distortion on the plan.
4. It is common that different coatings of walls have different tolerances to movement. Some types of
these are listed in the table.
5. The deflection limits for floors or roofs are strongly influenced by the surface finishing type. The
glasses are an extreme example because the reflection of their surface amplifies an apparent twist
since the reflected images “move” with the glass surface distortions.
4.B.2.2 Maximum acceleration at the longitudinal direction
The maximum acceleration of a prismatic structure, at the wind longitudinal direction, is

obtained with the expression:
Where:
Xmax is the maximum acceleration of the structure, in m/s2,
kp is the peak factor calculated with expression B.8, dimensionless, and
σX is the standard deviation of the structure acceleration calculated with

expression B.9, in m/s2.
The peak factor is given by:
4B I. 9
APPENDIX B
Where T = 600 s is the time the wind speed is averaged and ν is the frequency of the
crossings by zero which, in this case, is taken equal to the natural frequency of the first
mode of vibration of the structure at the wind longitudinal direction, that is to say, ν = η1,x,
in Hz.
The standard deviation, in m/s2, of the structure acceleration is obtained with:
Where:
me is the structure equivalent mass per length unit, calculated with equation
4.4.49, in kg/m,
ρ is the air density, equal to 1.225 kg/m3,
b is the structure dimension at the wind flow direction, in m,
Ca is the force or drag coefficient, dimensionless,
V’D(zs) is the design mean speed, in m/s, calculated as specified in point 4.4.2 and
at a reference height, zs (see Figure 4.4.2),
Iv(zs) is the turbulence index, evaluated at the reference height, zs, and calculated
with equation 4.4.6, dimensionless,
R is the square root of the response factor in resonance, obtained with

equation 4.4.9, dimensionless,
Kb is the correction factor of the modal shape of vibration by acceleration,

calculated with expression B.10, dimensionless, and
Φ1,x(z) is the modal shape of the first mode of vibration of the structure at the wind
flow direction, dimensionless.
The correction factor of the modal shape of vibration for the calculation of acceleration is
obtained with:
4B I. 10
APPENDIX B
Where h is the structure height, in m; the other variables were already defined.
The limit value given as a guide for accelerations of buildings, with frequencies of vibration
smaller than 0.1 Hz, is the following:
a) 0.015 g at the structure maximum height in office buildings.
b) 0.010 g at the structure maximum height in residential buildings.
In the previous limit values, g is the acceleration of gravity equal to 9.81 m/s2.
For buildings with natural frequencies approximately equal to 1 Hz, their limit values can
be taken as the half of the corresponding previous values.
4B I. 11
APPENDIX C
4.C REGIONAL SPEEDS
TABLE C.1 REGIONAL SPEEDS OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CITIES
4C I. 1
APPENDIX C
4C I. 2
APPENDIX C
4C I. 3
APPENDIX C
In this table:
Obs. num. is the observatory number,
Tr10m Tr50, Tr200 are the columns containing the regional speeds, in km/s, corresponding to
the return periods of 10, 50 and 200 years, and,
Q5, Q15 are columns containing the optimal regional speeds, in km/h,
corresponding to the importance factors of losses 5 and 15.
4C I. 4
APPENDIX C
Table C.2 LOCATION, ALTITUDE AND ANNUAL MEAN TEMPERATURE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
CITIES
4C I. 5
APPENDIX C
4C I. 6
APPENDIX C
4C I. 7
APPENDIX C
In this table:
msnm is the column that contains the city height above the sea level, in m.
4C I. 8
APPENDIX D
4D NOMENCLATURE
4D.1 CRITERIA FOR WIND DESIGN
λ Slenderness ratio, dimensionless
4D.2 DETERMINATION OF THE DESIGN BASIC SPEED, VD
Aref Reference area on which the pressure acts, in m2

c Roughness scale coefficient, dimensionless
CI Initial cost of the construction
CL Cost of repairs and direct and indirect losses which would be
produced in the case of a structural failure
Cp Pressure coefficient, dimensionless
FAD Dynamic amplification factor, dimensionless
Feq Equivalent dynamic force, in N
Fes Static force, in N
Frz Local exposure factor, dimensionless
Local topography factor, dimensionless
G Correction factor by temperature and height regarding the sea level,
dimensionless
Ht Promontory or terraplein height vertically measured from the start of
the gradient to the top, in m
hm Height above the sea level, in m
L1 Longitudinal scale for determining the vertical variation of FT, in m
L2 Longitudinal scale for determining the horizontal variation of FT, in m
Ls Horizontal distance of the flow separation zone, in m
Lu Windward horizontal distance measured from Ht/2 to the promontory
or terraplein top, in m
pz Acting pressure on a construction, in Pa
Q Ration between the cost of losses when occurring a structural failure
and the initial cost of the construction, dimensionless
qz Base dynamic pressure at a height z above the terrain level, in Pa
T Return period of the regional speed, VR, in years
4D I. 1
APPENDIX D
VD Design basic speed, in km/h

VR Regional gust speed, in km/h
VRO Optimal regional gust speed, in km/h
Xt Windward or leeward horizontal distance, measured between the
structure and the promontory or terraplein top, in m
z Height above the natural terrain level at which the design speed is
wanted to know, in m
zt Structure reference area measured from the terrain promontory, in m
Greek symbols
α Exponent that determines the speed variation way of wind with
height, dimensionless
δ Gradient height, in m
τ Ambient temperature, in °C
Ω Barometric pressure, in mm of Hg
4D I. 2
APPENDIX D
4D.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
A Tributary area, in m2
A, B, C Zones to define local pressure coefficients in circular arch covers or
roofs of silos and tanks
AA Exposed area of the UHF antenna, in m2
AAt Area of the front face elements of an isolated tower section, in m2
Aa Exposed area of a fitting located in the tower considered section, in

m2
Af Affectation area for local pressures in coatings, in m2
a, c Constants for obtaining the correction factor by interference
a Width of affectation area of local pressures in roofs of cylindrical silos

and tanks, in m
a0 Affectation dimension of local pressures in coatings, in m
a1 Affectation dimension of local pressures in coating of isolated roofs or
canopies, in m
a, c, g, j, m, n, x, Zones in which the saw tooted roofs are divided in closed

y, s constructions
a, c, g, m, s Zones in which the multiple span gable roofs are divided in closed
constructions
B Sloped zone of the roof or circular arch cover, windward
b Windward surface width exposed transversally to wind flow or
average diameter of sections with circular shape or fitting average
diameter or as defined in the corresponding figures, in m
bx Individual element width at the x direction, in m
by Individual element width at the y direction, in m
b/w Ratio between the fitting average diameter and the average width of
the tower considered section, dimensionless
C Central zone of the horizontal roof or circular arch of the cover
Ca Drag coefficient, dimensionless
Ca , Cs , Cm Drag coefficients for microwave antennas, dimensionless
Ca t Drag coefficient of an isolated tower section, dimensionless
Cate Drag coefficient for tower sections with fittings, dimensionless
4D I. 3
APPENDIX D
Cau Drag coefficient of the isolated fitting, dimensionless
CB Windward cover
Cdv Vertical dynamic amplification factor in cantilever roofs, dimensionless
Cf Force coefficient, dimensionless
CFx Force coefficient at the x direction, dimensionless
CFy Force coefficient at the y direction, dimensionless
Cpb Pressure coefficient at windward zone, dimensionless
Cpc External pressure coefficient for cylindrical deposits, dimensionless
Cpe External pressure coefficient, dimensionless
Cpi Internal pressure coefficient, dimensionless
Cpl Local pressure coefficient, dimensionless
Cpn Net pressure coefficient, dimensionless
Cps Pressure coefficient at leeward zone, dimensionless
Cpv Vertical pressure coefficient in cantilever roofs, dimensionless
CS Leeward cover
CT Transversal cover
D Minimum dimension of the structure base, in m
D1 Diameter of the microwave antenna, in m
d Dimension of the structure parallel to wind flow, in m
Fa Drag force on the element structure at the wind direction, in N
Fam Axial force acting along the antenna axis, in N
Fat Drag force on a isolated tower section, in N
Fes Static force, in N

Fsm Side force acting perpendicular to the antenna axis, in N
Fx Drag force at the x direction per length unit of the structural element,
in N/m
Fy Drag force at the y direction per length unit of the structural element
in N/m
Gh Dynamic response factor, dimensionless
H Construction height from the natural terrain level, in m
Hc Ridgepole height of circular arch covers, measured from the start of
4D I. 4
APPENDIX D
the arch, in m
H Wall height in circular arch cover constructions, in m
H Billboard height, in m
Average height of the building roof, in m
hc Height measured from the terrain level to the adjacent canopy or
cover, in m
he Height of the cylindrical silo or tank measured from its base up to the
start of the ridgepole, in m
hp Parapet height measured from the cover level, in m
hf Average height of roughness on the surface, in m
IH Turbulence index calculated at the height H of the cantilever,
dimensionless
KA Pressure reduction factor by area size, dimensionless
Ke Protection factor applicable to multiple opened structures,
dimensionless
Kin Correction factor b interference, dimensionless
KL Local pressure factor, dimensionless
KP Pressure reduction factor by porosity, dimensionless
Kre Correction factor by slenderness for individual elements,
dimensionless
Ks Correction factor by slenderness ratio for cylindrical silos and tanks,
dimensionless
L Affectation length of pressures on roofs of cylindrical silos and tanks,
in m
L Circular arch cover length, in m
La Arch length of the cover, in m
Le Individual element or structure length, in m
Lec Structure length, in m
Lc Length of adjacent canopy or cover, in m
Lv Cantilever roof length, in m
MB Windward wall
ML Side wall
Mm Acting moment on an antenna on a plan containing the Fam and Fsm,
4D I. 5
APPENDIX D
in N
MS Leeward wall
n Total number of spans
n1,y Natural frequency of vibration in flexure at the wind flow transversal
direction, in Hz
pe External pressure, in Pa
pi Internal pressure, in Pa
pl Local pressure, in Pa
pn Net pressure, in Pa
pv Vertical pressure on cantilever roofs, in Pa
pz Design pressure evaluated at the height z, in Pa
qH Base dynamic pressure calculated at the height H of the cantilever
roof, in Pa
qz Base dynamic pressure, in Pa
qzta Base dynamic pressure evaluated at the height zta, in Pa

r Radius of the cross section corners of a prismatic element, in m
S Sloped zone of the leeward roof or circular arch cover
s Arch segment length, in m
VH Design speed calculated at a height H of the cantilever roof, in km/h
x Distance from the arch cover edge, in m
xv Distance from the cantilever roof, in m
z ta Average height of an isolated tower section, in m
Greek symbols
β Angle between the wind direction and one point on the circular silo or
tank wall, in degrees
Δ Cat Additional drag coefficient due to fittings, dimensionless
Solidity ratio, dimensionless

Effective solidity ratio, dimensionless
γ Roof slope angle regarding the horizontal, in degrees

λ Ratio between the arch ridgepole height and the cover width,
dimensionless
4D I. 6
APPENDIX D
θ Wind attack angle, in degree
θa Wind deviation angle on the fitting, in degrees
θm Angle between the wind direction and the element longitudinal axis, in
degrees
σ Spacing ratio among frames, dimensionless
4D I. 7
APPENDIX D
4D.4 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Aexp Exposed area projected on the plan perpendicular to wind flow, in m2

Aref Projected are of members on which the pressure acts, in m
aL Constant that limits the structure displacement amplitudes,

dimensionless
B2 Bottom response factor, dimensionless
b Structure width normal to the wind direction, in m
b External diameter in cylindrical structures with vortices, in m
Coefficient to obtain the exposure factor, dimensionless
b0 Width projected on the structure base at terrain level, in m

bh Lattice structure width at height h, in m
Ca Aerodynamic constant dependent on the structure or structural

element cross section, dimensionless
Ca t Drag coefficient of lattice or telecommunication towers, dimensionless
CG and CRG Corrective constants of the modal shape, dimensionless

c1 and c2 Constants to obtain the standard deviation of the transversal
displacement, dimensionless
D Minimum dimension of the structure base, in m
D Average dimension of the structure cross section, in m
d Structure dimension perpendicular to the wind direction, in m
FM Correction factor by mass, dimensionless
F’rz Exposure factor for mean speed, dimensionless
FT Local topography factor, dimensionless
Fw(z) Inertia force per length unit perpendicular to wind flow, in N/m
h Structure height according to Figure 4.4.2, in m
h Structure height or structural element length, in m
Iv(zs) Turbulence index evaluated at the reference height, zs, dimensionless
4D I. 8
APPENDIX D
Ka Aerodynamic damping factor, dimensionless
kp Peak factor, dimensionless

Ks(n1,x) Size reduction factor, dimensionless
L(zs) Length of the turbulence scale at the reference height, zs, in m
m Structure mass per length unit, in kg/m
me Equivalent mass per length unit, in kg/m
mr Generalized mass at the wind longitudinal direction, in kg
mtotal Total mass of the structure, in kg
n1,x Natural frequency of vibration of the structure at the wind longitudinal
direction, in Hz
n1,y Natural frequency of vibration of the structure at the wind transversal
direction, in Hz
peq Equivalent dynamic pressure on deformable cover, in Pa
pm Wind mean pressure on deformable covers, in Pa
pz Acting pressure on the structure evaluated at the height z, in Pa
R2 Response factor in resonance, dimensionless
Re Reynolds number, dimensionless
Rb(ηb) and Rh(ηh) Aerodynamic admittance functions, dimensionless
SL(zs, n1,x) Wind power density, dimensionless
St Strouhal number, dimensionless
T Time interval for calculating the maximum response, in s
T0 Initial tension on the cables of deformable roofs, in kN/m
Vcrit Critical speed of appearance of periodic vortices, in m/s
V’D Wind design mean speed, in km/h
VR Wind gust regional speed, in km/h
YFmax Maximum transversal displacement at wind flow, in m
z Height above the natural terrain level to which is desired to know the
design speed, in m
z0 Terrain roughness length, in m
zmax Maximum height for the application of the dynamic method, in m
zmin Minimum height above the terrain level for the application of the
dynamic method, in m
4D I. 9
APPENDIX D
zs Reference height, in m
Greek symbols
α' Exponent of the speed variation with height, in m
Exponent to obtain the length of the turbulence scale, dimensionless
β*d and β*s Dynamic coefficient for deformable roofs, dimensionless
Φ1,x(z) Fundamental modal shape of the structure at the wind direction,
dimensionless
Φ1,y(z) Fundamental modal shape of the structure at the wind transversal
direction, dimensionless
ηb, ηh Reduced frequencies in function of b and h, dimensionless
η*d, and η*s Factors that make uniform the not lineal response for deformable
roof, dimensionless
λm Coefficient that determines the variation of the modal shape with
λB Factor to obtain the corrective constants of the modal shape,
dimensionless
ν Frequency of crossings by zero or mean ratio of oscillations, in Hz
νc Kinematic viscosity of air, in m2/s
σy Standard deviation of displacement transversal to wind flow, in m
ζa,x Aerodynamic damping ratio at the wind direction, dimensionless
ζd,x Damping ratio due to special damping mechanisms at the wind

direction, dimensionless
ζest,x Structural damping ratio at the wind direction, dimensionless
ζt,x Total damping ratio at the wind direction, dimensionless
ζt,y Total damping ratio at the wind transversal direction, dimensionless
4D I. 10
CONTENT
CONTENT
VOLUME II COMMENTS
4.1 CRITERIA FOR WIND DESIGN 1
NOMENCLATURE 1
4.1.1 SCOPE 2
4.1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 2
4.1.3 CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR IMPORTANCE 3
CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPONSE
4.1.4 5
BEFORE WIND ACTION
4.1.5 WIND ACTIONS TO CONSIDER 7
REFERENCES 12
4.2 DETERMINATION OF THE DESIGN BASIC SPEED, VD 1

NOMENCLATURE 1
4.2.1 TERRAIN CATEGORIES ACCORDING TO THEIR ROUGHNESS 4
4.2.2 ISOTACH MAPS, REGIONAL SPEED, VR 7
4.2.2.1 Regional speed for a fixed return period 7
4.2.2.2 Optimal regional speed 11
4.2.3 EXPOSURE FACTOR, Frz 18
4.2.4 TOPOGRAPHY FACTOR, FT 24
4.2.5 BASE DYNAMIC PRESSURE, qz 25
REFERENCES 27
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS 1

NOMENCLATURE 1
4.3.1 LIMITATIONS 3
4.3.2 PRESSURES AND FORCES DUE TO WIND ACTION 3
4.3.2.1 Forces on closed constructions 3
4.3.2.2 Horizontal roof constructions with sloped ends 12
4.3.2.3 Constructions with multiple span roofs (γ<60°) 12
4.3.2.4 Circular arch roofs 12
4.3.2.5 Isolated roofs 13
4.3.2.6 Canopies and roofs adjacent to closed constructions 13
4.3.2.7 Cantilever roofs 14
4.3.2.8 Isolated billboards and walls 14
4.3.2.9 Cylindrical silos and tanks 15
4.3.2.10 Forces on individual members 16
4.3.2.11 Chimneys and towers 17
4.3.2.12 Telecommunication towers and fittings 17
REFERENCES 19
4.4 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 1

4.4.1 LIMITATIONS 3
4.4.2 DETERMINATION OF MEAN SPEED, V’D 5
4.4.2.1 Exposure factor for mean speed, F’rz 5
EQUIVALENT DYNAMIC FORCE AT THE WIND SPEED, Feq, FOR PRISMATIC
4.4.4 7
4.4.4.1 Dynamic amplification factor for prismatic structures 8
4.4.4.2 Dynamic amplification factor for cylindrical structures 9
EQUIVALENT DYNAMIC FORCE AT THE WIND DIRECTION, Feq, FOR SELF
4.4.5 10
4. II. i
CONTENT
4.4.5.1 Dynamic amplification factor for self supporting lattice towers 10

4.4.6 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF DEFORMABLE ROOFS WITH CONICAL SHAPE 12
EQUIVALENT FORCES PERPENDICULAR TO WIND DIRECTION. PERIODIC
4.4.7 13
VORTICES EFFECT
4.4.7.1 Critical speed of periodic vortices 13
4.4.7.2 Forces due to periodic vortex detachment 14
4.4.7.3 Maximum displacement transversal to wind flow, YF,max 14
Recommendations to decrease vibrations due to periodic vortex
4.4.7.4 17
detachment
4.4.8 AEROLASTIC INSTABILITY 19
REFERENCES 20
4. II. ii
4.1 CRITERIA FOR WIND DESIGN
NOMENCLATURE
b Flow transversal dimension

D Body width perpendicular to flow
d Dimension parallel to flow
e Eccentricity
h Structure reference height
Mean response at wind flow direction
Peak response at flow direction
Peak response transversal to the wind flow direction
Re Reynolds number
Rt Maximum response
V Fluid velocity
Greek symbols
μ Fluid viscosity
ρ Fluid density
4.1 II. 1
4.1.1 SCOPE
In this Chapter version of Wind Design have been established new procedures that take
into account the influence of different parameters involved in the evaluation of the requests
generated by extreme winds that occur at the national territory. Such procedures reflect
largely the experience and current researches results, as much national as international,
performed by experts on the subject and even though some of them are strict and hard to
apply in practice, are necessary to determine correctly the wind request. However, there
had been convenient that some methods as that referred to the influence of the terrain
roughness be presented in this Volume of Comments with the purpose to simplify those
of the recommendations. These methods shall be only applied when the designer
considers it as indispensable.
On the other hand, in order to obtain more reliable and optimal designs from the cost-
benefit point of view, the technological tendencies in the wind design propose to establish
different levels of eolithic risk according with the importance of the constructions. The two
indispensable elements to establish such risks acceptable for society are the eolithic
danger of a region and the vulnerability before it, of each type of construction.
In this version is provided a recent focus of the eolithic danger in Mexico where its
distribution is represented on the maximum speed maps with fixed return period or optimal
maximum regarding the possible losses in case of a structural failure.
4.1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The recommended values of safety factor against overturning and displacement could be
substituted by other ones only if these are justified based on the accomplishment of
specialized studies in soil mechanics and on the information existing on the stratigraphy of
the footprint site.
4.1.3 CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR IMPORTANCE
It is important to emphasize that, with the purpose to establish provisions that facilitate
practically the design of structures before the wind action, it shall be simplified largely the
complex problem to estimate as much the intensity and occurrence of winds as their
effects.
The current criteria to the wind design estimate a regional speed associated to a
probability of being surpassed, since this is a typically aleatory variable on time.
The wind for design in a determined locality is the wind speed that every engineer selects
when projects a construction in order that this provides a good performance and an
adequate protection to its occupants of material or equipment it houses or sustains. When
taken into account that it is impossible to select, within practical limits, the maximum
4.1 II. 2
intensity of wind speed that can occur in a given place, in its selection shall be considered
explicitly the probability that its intensity be exceeded at least once during the supposed
useful life of the structure.
The optimal design criterion proposed by Esteva (1969 and 1970), has been put into
practice for the case of seismic danger in Mexico, defining optimal peak accelerations of
the terrain; when using these optimal accelerations it is implicit the minimum total cost
which includes the initial cost of the construction plus the direct and indirect losses cost, in
the case of a structural failure.
Now this criterion has been established for the case of eolithic danger in Mexico, where
the regional speeds are transformed to optimal, which are associated as much to the
construction importance as to the acceptable level of losses, in the case of a failure. Point
4.2.2.2 of this Volume of Comments will abound in this criterion.
Under this philosophy, the magnitude of forces due to wind depends basically on the
following concepts:
a) Importance of destination assigned to a given structure in function of the required

safety grade or level, or acceptable level of the cost of losses.
b) The occurrence probability of the maximum intensity of wind because of its aleatory
character.
c) Local roughness and topography characteristics where desired to found
(desplantar) the construction, and
d) Strength and response characteristics of the structure before the wind dynamic
action.
In this chapter, the safety grade was established taking into consideration three
fundamental aspects before the occurrence of an extreme event: a) avoid human hurts
and losses, b) limit economic or cultural type damages and c) achieve the structures
providing indispensable services continue operating continuously.
Given the scare information on the cost of losses due to failures of different types of
constructions, mostly those used in the industry in general, it is hard to evaluate
quantitatively the acceptable level of safety. For this reason, the classification of
structures according their importance or use is defined in function of this level evaluated
qualitatively. In practice, the safety grade is estimated regarding the use given to the
construction in order to classify it in some of the recommended groups but also could be
defined considering the risk established by the owner of this, according with its economical
resources and cost that would result from the reparation or total reconstruction of the
Works before an extreme event.
4.1 II. 3
In special structures, the safety grade can be so high that are out of the given classification.
In such case the adopted analysis and design criteria shall be defined according with the
knowledge status.
4.1.4 CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPONSE

BEFORE WIND ACTION
The response of a determined construction before wind action depends on:
a) The structure geometry. Its shape and dimensions besides its dynamic
characteristics determine the nature of the requests due to wind. These last can
be divided in two components, one mean (static) and other dynamic (variable in
function of time). Before sustained wind with constant speed, the mean pressures
(static) constitute the most important part of the effects on very little flexible
constructions and with short natural periods of vibration (not greater than one
second approximately). The distribution of such pressures on the surfaces
exposed to wind depends on the geometry and can be experimentally evaluated
from test on rigid models in wind tunnel. For practical purposes and common
structures, such pressures are determined in function of pressure coefficients
calibrated with experimental tests.
b) Dynamic properties of the structure. The fluctuations on wind speed cause

vibrations which magnitude depends on the flow characteristics and structure
properties such as the distribution of their mass, flexibility and damping. The light,
flexible constructions with low damping have natural periods of vibration that can
be in the same interval of average occurrence periods of strong gusts and,
therefore, important resonance movements induced by wind can occur. In this
case, in the design shall be considered the mean and dynamic effects of gusts
which are growing function of the maximum speed and their fluctuation. Currently,
different methods have been developed to evaluate the mentioned effects; the
main basis of these procedures are described in Simiu and Scanlan (1996),
Ghiocel and Lungu (1975), Sachs (1978) and Holmes (2007).
c) Flow-structure interaction characteristics. The mean (static) and dynamic mean

pushes described in a) and b) constitute the most important longitudinal component
of the effects the wind causes on the structures, if excepted the dynamic
amplification problems described in d). Also, the disturbances that some bodies
produce on the air flow are manifested as vortices, which are generated
periodically and travel along the turbulent trail, causing transversal dynamic pushes
at the wind direction.
d) Aerolastic instability characteristics. The wind action on a structure produces

displacements of the same, as much at the direction this flows, as normally to flow.
The relative speed between wind and construction varies in magnitude and
4.1 II. 4
direction in function of time, altering the incidence angle. For certain shapes of
bodies and wind direction, it can happen that this when acting with a new incidence
angle causes greater forces or displacements at the transversal direction
originating new changes in such angle; if this phenomenon continues, the
displacements can be excessive and cause eventually the structure collapse.
Wind tunnel tests allow establish when a given geometric shape can cause
instability problems, see Simiu and Scalan (1996) and ASCE (1999).
An important phenomenon that can produce dangerous vibrations on flexible

constructions is that denominated as “flutter”. When the wind pushes with a very
low attack angle on big flat or very low curvature areas, can excite simultaneously
bending or torsion vibrations. The displacements of a mode of vibration increase
the wind effects on any other; if these have close periods among them, they are
coupled and the amplitude of the displacements increases cycle by cycle. This
phenomenon is typical in suspended covers with low curvature and suspension
bridges.
4.1.5 WIND ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
ACTION I. Mean pressures
Mean pressures represent the mean action (static) of wind when acting on a structure. As
discussed in point 4.1.4, the mean pressures constitute the most important part of the
effects on little flexible constructions and with short natural periods of vibration (not greater
than one second).
ACTION II. Vibrations generated by turbulent gusts at the wind direction
The dynamic pressures are originated when the wind flow has fluctuations in its speed due
to the gusts and their duration.
When analyzing the records of wind speeds the spectrum of horizontal wind speeds could
be quantified regarding their frequencies. Figure 4.1.1 shows a schema of this spectrum
which represents the variation of wind energy content for each frequency and also, allows
visualize the frequency intervals with more or less energetic content. In this figure, in the
macro-meteorological interval of low frequencies can be identified an important energetic
contribution of air, as well as the natural cycles of the climatologic changes at great scale
and daily cycles; the main periods observed in this interval approximately are 365 days for
annual cycles and 4 and 1 days for daily ones.
In this interval, the cyclic repetition frequencies of winds are too low compared with those
of vibrations inherent of the constructions; therefore, there is not possibility that important
dynamic effects are generated.
4.1 II. 5
The contribution that can generate dynamic amplification corresponds to micro-

meteorological turbulence (high frequencies of gusts) since this interval groups the
frequencies the constructions have. This spectrum depends on the terrain superficial
characteristics, height above it and flow intensity. The spectrum of micro-meteorological
frequencies indicates the cyclic contributions of gusts with periods included between
thousands and tenth of second, see Ghiocel and Lungu (1975) and Sachs (1978).
Hereafter, it is considered that the dynamic amplification problems in structures occur in
periods of one second, since the upper end of the period of gusts is above the periods that
can be expected in the common constructions.
Figure 4.1.1 Power spectrum of horizontal wind speed, by Vander Hoven, 1967
ACTION III. Vibrations transversal to flow and torsion
In the trail formed on the posterior part of prismatic bodies when the wind flow acts on
them can appear vortices that alternate according to different Reynolds numbers Re =
ρVDμ, where ρ = fluid density, μ = fluid viscosity, V = fluid velocity and D = body width
perpendicular to the flow). This phenomenon appears mostly on bodies with curve edges
(see Figure 4.1.2). This effect is presented inclusive when dealing with low viscosity fluids,
as in the case of the wind flow.
The separation of vortices causes great suctions at the posterior part of bodies exposed to
flow, mostly on those of cylindrical section. This is explained, by one part, the alternating
on the one hand, in an additional drag force at the fluid movement direction, but on the
other, the alternating vortices induce on the body periodical transversal forces susceptible
to generate an excessive amplification of the dynamic transversal response.
The turbulent vortices of the trail are known as Bérnard-von Kármán vortices (French and
German scientists to whom is attributable this observation), which, for the case of a
cylindrical body within a subcritical regimen flow, have the characteristics indicated in
Figure 4.1.3.
4.1 II. 6
Figure 4.1.2 Appearance of alternating vortices
Figure 4.1.3 Bénard – von Kármán vortices
4.1 II. 7
Regarding the torsion effects, even though there are several studies for evaluating these
effects, the methods are general and are not sufficient for being applied with purposes of
structural design. In general, this effect is present when the center of elastic rigidities is far
away from the aerodynamic center of the application of the aerodynamic force.
The Canadian code (NBCC, 2005) recommends consider these effects for the structures
included in the dynamic analysis, considering four critical cases:
a) For each orthogonal direction, apply the total load independently.

b) For each orthogonal direction, independently select an area and remove the load.
c) Apply simultaneously the 75% of load at both directions.
d) The same than in case c) but selecting an area at both directions and decrease the
load to 50% (apply 37.5% of load on the selected areas).
For the case of asymmetry in rigidity, it is recommended to consider an eccentricity e =

0.1b, where b is the flow transversal dimension; this applies when the structure
dimensions comply with d > 0.2b and h > 6b, where b and d are the base dimensions and
h is the structure reference height; b is the flow transversal dimension.
Likewise, some international regulations recommend combine the loads at the wind flow
direction and the transversal ones to this with a rule of vectorial superposition type of
forces as follows:
Where:
Rt is the maximum response,
is the mean response at wind flow direction,
is the peak response at flow direction, and
is the transversal peak response at the wind flow direction
ACTION IV. Aerolastic instability
This effect is present in structures where the wind forces at one direction increases at the
rate of the displacement at the same direction. A typical problem of this case is known as
galloping, which is present on transmission lines cables of electric energy covered with ice
or on parabolic antennas when subjected to the oblique wind action. Other example of this
phenomenon is the flutter, mentioned in point 4.1.4 of this Volume of Comments.
4.1 II. 8
An additional effect that eventually can be present is that due to the load accumulation
originated by wind drag; such as the case of snow accumulated on certain zones of the
constructions, see Ghiocel and Lungu (1975). In these cases shall be evaluated the
additional loads and consider them in the design.
4.1 II. 9
REFERENCES
ASCE (1999), “Wind tunnel studies of buildings and structures”, Task Committee on Wind
Tunnel Testing of Buildings and Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Aerodynamics Committee Aerospace Division, Manuals and Reports on Engineering
Practice No. 67, Virginia, USA, 2nd Edition.
Esteva, L. (1970), “Regionalización sísmica de México para fines de Ingeniería”, Serie

Azul del Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM, pp-246.
Esteva, L. (1969), “Seismic risk and seismic design decisions”, Seminar on Seismic
Design for Nuclear Power Plants, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Mass.
Ghicel, D., Lungu D. (1975), “Wind, snow and temperature effects on structures based on
probability”, Abacus Press, Tunbridge Well, Kent, England.
Holmes, J. D. (2007), “Wind loading of structures”, Taylor & Francis, New York, USA, 2nd
Edition.
National Research Council of Canada (2005), “National Building Code of Canada”,

Canada Commission on Building and Fire Codes.
Sachs, P. (1978), “Wind forces in engineering”, Pergamon Press, England.
Simiu, E.; Miyata, T. (2006), “Design of Buildings and Bridges for Wind: A practical Guide
of ASCE-7 Standard. Users and Designers of Special Structures”, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, N. J.
Simiu, E.; Scanlan r. H. (1996), “Wind effects on structures: An introduction to wind

engineering”, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA., 3rd Edition.
Van der Hoven, I. (1967), “Power spectrum of horizontal wind speed in the frequency
range from 0.0007 to 900 cycles per hour”, J. Meteorology, Vol. 14, pp. 160-164.
4.1 II. 10
4.2 DETERMINATION OF THE DESIGN BASIC SPEED
NOMENCLATURE
c Roughness scale coefficient, dimensionless

C0 Cost of the structure when is not designed to resist side loads due to
wind action
CI(v) Initial cost of the construction
CL Cost of the losses in case of a structural failure
CP(v) Cost of expected losses updated to current value
CR Function parameter of initial cost
CT Total cost that integrates by the initial cost of the construction plus
those due to losses, updated to current value
Dp Average distance obtained from Table 4.2.4, in m
F(v) Accumulated distribution function (FDA), dimensionless
Frz Exposure factor, dimensionless
Frzc Corrected exposure factor, dimensionless
Frzj Exposure factor calculated for the terrain Category j, dimensionless
FT Topography factor, dimensionless
f(Vp) Probability density factor of the wind peak speed
G Correction factor by temperature and by height regarding the sea
level, dimensionless
g(t1/t2) Gust factor among averaged speed on t1 and t2 lapses, dimensionless
H Total height of the structure, in m
h Reference height, in m
hm Height above the sea level of the site, in km
Ht Promontory or terraplein height, vertically measured from the start of
the slope to the top, in m
Turbulence index, dimensionless
j Number of category of the terrain within the average distance

K Factor equal to CR/C0
Lu Windward horizontal distance measured from Ht/2 to the promontory
or terraplein top, in m
N Exposure period or useful life of the structure, in years
4.2 II. 1
P Probability that the wind speed be exceeded any year, dimensionless

Q Factor that measures the structural importance in terms of losses and
initial cost of the construction
T Return period of the speed VT, in years
t1, t2 Average lapses
u, k Shape parameters of function F(v)
v Wind speed
Mean speed, in km/m
v0 Wind speed associated to the “free side resistance”

V10 Gust regional speed presented at a base height of 10 meters, for a
Category 2 terrain, in km/h
Excess rate of the demand produced by the failure when designed for
a wind speed v.
Vz Wind speed at a height z, in km/h
Vzn Wind speed at a height z, in a Category 2 terrain n, in km/h
xj Lag distance, in m
Xt Windward or leeward horizontal distance measured between the
structure and the promontory or terraplein top, in m
xt,j New length of terrain with Category j, in m
w Upper limit of the aleatory variable v
z Height of the influence covering for which is desired to obtain the
value of xj, in m
z0,r The greatest of the two roughness lengths of two adjacent terrain
Categories, in m
zt Reference height of the structure measured from the terrain average
level, in m
Greek symbols
α Exponent that determines the variation form of the wind speed with
α Parameter of the initial cost function
α2 Exponent corresponding to the terrain with Category 2
δ Gradient height, in meters
4.2 II. 2
ε Lower limit of the aleatory variable v

μ Net annual rate of discount of money value
σv Standard deviation of mean speed, , dimensionless
ψ Shape parameter of function F(v)
4.2 II. 3
The basic speed of wind design is determined when evaluated quantitatively several
aspects pointed out next:
a) Variation of wind speed regarding the height. This variation is given mainly in
function of the roughness characteristics of the surrounding terrain.
b) Local effects the roughness of the place induces on it.
c) Probability that a certain speed is exceeded in any year, this probability is the
opposite of the return period.
The return period, T, is the average time during which the regional speed can be exceeded.
It does not mean that such speed has a mean recurrence of T years, neither, that surely it
will be exceeded once in T years.
4.2.1 CATEGORIES OF TERRAINS ACCORDING THEIR ROUGHNESS
The Categories of terrains are defined in function of their roughness. Close to the surface,
the wind finds different obstacles during its trajectory, and its turbulence depends on the
size, number and geometrical disposition of them, that is, the roughness grade of the
terrain. If the obstructions are big and numerous, the surface is rough; on the contrary, if
the obstructions are small and spaced, then the surface is considered smooth. A rough
soil will produce a great turbulence in the wind, while a soil practically smooth does not
generate turbulence in the low layers of the atmosphere.
In general, the wind speed increases with height, from the terrain level. The increasing
variation depends not only on the surrounding terrain roughness but also on the short
gusts or wind mean speeds, that is, speeds associated to different average lapses. The
average lapse is the time interval selected to determine the average maximum speed, see
Figure 4.2.1. As this interval decreases, the corresponding mean maximum speed
increases. The speeds of gusts occur in average lapses from 3 to 15 seconds and are
related with the dynamic characteristics of the structure for taking into account that the
slender and flexible constructions are affected by the short duration gusts, while the low
and rigid ones are affected by mean speeds associated to flow.
4.2 II. 4
Figure 4.2.1 Average lapse and excess probability
The ratio between the average maximum speed on a lapse t1 and another averaged on a
greater lapse, t2, is denominated gust factor. From experimental studies, Mackey et al.
(1970) proposed the following equation for the gust factor:
Where:
is the gust factor between average speeds on lapses of t1 and t2 seconds,

dimensionless
I(v) is the turbulence index, dimensionless, equal to , and
is the ratio between the standard deviation of the mean speed, v, in km/h
and the average mean speed, in km/h, considering a lapse of t2 seconds;
the ratio is dimensionless.
This expression is valid for a height of 10 meters and for terrain with Category 2. The
turbulence index also varies with height and depends on the roughness characteristics of
4.2 II. 5
the terrain, as the speed. In point 4.4.4.1 of Volume of Recommendations, is described

the expression to calculate it.
In this way could be possible to go, for example, from horary mean speeds (t2 = 1 hour) to
gust speeds (t1 = 2 to 3 seconds).
If it is desired to know the gust factor corresponding to any average lapse, g(t1/t2), proceed
as explained next. In order to determine the gust factor between the average speeds in 3
and 15 seconds, g(3/15), first of all, calculate, with the expressions given previously, the
gust factors for these lapses regarding to horary g(3/3600) and g(15/3600); finally, the
desired gust factor is:
Likewise, Vellozzi and Cohen (1968) present a graphic for the gust factor g(t/3600 s) for a
Category 2 of the terrain and at a height of 10 meters above the natural terrain level. This
graphic is based on the results of Durst (1960), coming from a statistic analysis of the data
obtained from strong winds and are shown in Figure 4.2.2. In this same figure are shown
the gust factor g(t/3600 s) proposed by Mackey.
On the other hand, it shall be pointed out that at any terrain can be presented gradual
changes of roughness. For developing a profile of speeds it is necessary that the wind
travels a certain distance along a same roughness (Category) of terrain. For this reason,
Table 4.2.1 (Volume of Recommendations) indicates the minimum distances to take into
account for establishing adequately the profile of speeds. In case these limits are not
satisfied, the most unfavorable terrain Category will be considered according to the
characteristics of the problem. On the other hand, it shall be taken into account the
possible difference on the surface roughness for the considered analysis directions. With
the purpose to estimate the roughness change at a particular direction, can be followed
analytical procedures as those recommended in Wood (1982) and Melbourne (1981a), as
long as the results are plenty justified. In point 4.2.3 is described an analytical procedure
for considering the roughness changes, which comes from the Australian code AS/NZS
1170.2 (2005).
4.2 II. 6
Figure 4.2.2 Gust factor g(t/3600 s) for a Category 2 of terrain and at a height of 10 m above the natural
terrain level
4.2.2 ISOTACH MAPS, REGIONAL SPEED, VR
4.2.2.1 Regional speed for a fixed return period
The experience shows that the maximum and mean gust speeds at any site make evident
a strong variation from one year to other. However, if there are sufficient records of the
monthly maximum speeds from a number of years (usually 15 years), it is possible
estimate the wind maximum speed that can be presented in a certain period, using
statistics techniques of extreme values.
The regional speeds recommended in this point correspond to gusts of 3 seconds and
come from a strict statistical analysis of the wind speed records that the meteorological
stations of the country have. This analysis was performed by the Civil Engineering
Management (GIC) of the Electric Research Institute (Instituto de Investigaciones
Eléctricas, IIE)
With the purpose to determine the regional speeds indicated in this point, there were
studied three distribution functions of extreme values for each one of the meteorological
stations of the country, which are defined in the following way (consult Benjamín and
Cornell, 1970):
(1) Extreme accumulated distribution function, not delimited (Fisher Tippet I):
4.2 II. 7
(2) Extreme accumulated distribution function, limited at the upper part (Fisher Tippet
III):
(3) Extreme accumulated distribution function, limited at the lower part (Weibull):
Where:
F(v) is the accumulated distribution function (FDA) that represents the probability
that the aleatory variable (in this case, the wind speed) is smaller than or
equal to a certain value of v, dimensionless,
ε is the lower limit of the aleatory variable v,
w is the upper limit of the aleatory variable, and
ψ, u, k are the shape parameters of function F(v), estimated from the observed
data of the aleatory variable, v.
The units of the variables ε, w, ψ and u are [L/T] depending on if the speeds are in km/h or
m/s homogeneously. Variable k is dimensionless.
In the previous expressions, u, w, k, ψ and ε are parameters of the accumulated

distribution function (FDA) and are calculated by means of an adjustment by the least-
squares, and v is the variable to be adjusted, that in this case is the wind speed.
It can be demonstrated that an approximated and reasonable function between the FDA
and the return period, T, in years, considered for the obtainment of the isotach maps is the
The analysis of extreme functions with speeds of the periods registered up to 2005 in the
meteorological stations was carried out by adjusting the least-squares the equations 4.2.3
to 4.2.5. The best adjustment was selected based on the tendency of the data and the
4.2 II. 8
associate variation coefficient. This methodology is pointed out in Aguirre and Sánchez
(1983), Aguirre and Sánchez (1986) and López et al. (2007).
For carrying out the calculation of the distributions, it was necessary to update the own
database of GIC from IIE for the statistical analysis of extreme values, which was
integrated with the monthly maximum gust speeds and their respective directions. These
data were mainly gathered from the records of sixty nine meteorological stations of the
National Meteorological Service. Additionally, for the Caribbean region, it was used the
information provided by the National Meteorological Service of Belize. Also, in order to
complement the scarce information of winds at the north of our country, it was reviewed
the information of thirty three cities at the south of the Unites States of America, obtained
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the USA; from this
information only was used that corresponding to the cities of San Diego in California,
Phoenix in Arizona and San Antonio and El Paso in Texas.
On the other hand, also for the statistical analysis there were taken into account the effects
of hurricanes occurred at the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific and Caribbean. With
this purpose, it was carried out a joined probability analysis between the distributions of
normal winds and those of the hurricanes. The information of these speeds and
trajectories of the hurricanes was acquired also from the NOAA, see López et al. (2007).
Currently, the GIC from IIE has a corrected and depurated database. Regarding normal
winds, the database includes the period from 1940 to 2005 and for winds due to
hurricanes includes, at the Gulf of Mexico, the period from 1886 to 2005 and at the Pacific
from 1949 to 2005. The used global process of probabilistic analysis and the computing
programs are described in detail in López et al. (2007).
Likewise, provided that the topography and roughness conditions, among others, differ
from one meteorological station to other, it was necessary to normalize the recorded
speeds on a common base. Due to the previous, the normalization consisted on referring
the wind speeds at a height of 10 meters above the terrain level and to a site free from
obstacles and with topography practically flat, Category 2; therefore, these are the
characteristics to which are associated the regional speeds of the isotach maps.
For carrying out this normalization, it was generated other database with the necessary
information which refers to the following points of each meteorological station:
• Numeric identification of the observatory and coordinates,

• Dates corresponding to the different localizations of the station,
• Dates of changes of the measurement equipment,
• Start, shutdown and completion, if appropriate, equipment operation dates,
• Weather vane height above the terrain level,
4.2 II. 9
• Coefficients that establish the variations in the terrain roughness at the environs of
the station such as the presence of fences, buildings, trees and vegetation that
obstruct the wind flow, and
• Coefficients that estimate the topography effect of the site.
The regional speeds are established in the isotach maps provided in the Volume of
Recommendations. They can not be strictly applicable to specific localities since there
are regions with scarce information, for example, the central part of the north and
northwest of the country. On the maps, these regions stand out because of the isotachs
are very separated among them, in such case the interpolation among values of the
isotachs shall be applied with precaution. Likewise, it is possible that above mountainous
zones, such as those of the states of Sinaloa, Durango, Sonora and Chihuahua, the
speeds shown in the maps are smaller than those really probable, since in these sites
there are very limited registered data, reason for which it is recommended to increase
them 10%. In places where there are records of great winds, these shall be used to
estimate the design speeds, applying for that methods as those used in López et al. (2007).
When short periods of speed records are available, extrapolation methods can be used as
that mentioned in Rodríguez (1964).
4.2.2.2 Optimal regional speed
As mentioned in point 4.1.3 of this Volume of Comments, the optimal design criterion of
Esteva (1969 and 1970) stated for the case of seismic danger in Mexico, here has been
applied to define the aeolian danger in terms of regional speeds associated to optimal
return periods, for which the total cost of the Works, integrated by its initial cost and the
costs of losses, is minimum in the case that a failure occur. For minimizing the total cost, it
was carried out an optimization study for structures of the Groups A and B, from which
they were obtained the maps of recommended optimal regional speeds. In this way, if in
the design of a construction, an optimal regional speed is used; at the long term will result
that the total cost is smaller than the cost obtained from adopting other design speed.
The most important aspect in this optimal design formulation is to assume that as much
the expected losses by wind as the initial cost of the construction depend only on one
parameter: the design nominal strength. This strength is related, for the case discussed
here, with the wind force (pressure) on the exposed area. Therefore, a design speed
value is optimum if this minimizes the sum of the current value of the expected losses by
wind action plus the initial costs of the construction. As consequence, the optimal values
are not associated to a fixed return period.
The total cost of the Works, CT, is integrated, then, with two components: the initial cost,
that grows when the speed value adopted for design increases, and the cost of all losses
produced by the wind action which can occur in the future, updated to current value, and
represented as:
4.2 II. 10
Where:
C1(v) is the initial cost of the construction, given by equation (4.2.7), and
Cp(v) is the cost of expected losses, given by equation (4.2.9).
Next, these two components are discussed and the process used to obtain the maps of
recommended optimal speeds is described.
Initial cost
It is selected the following variation of the initial cost of construction, CI(v), regarding the
wind speed, v:
Where:
C0 is the structure cost when this is not designed to resist side loads due to the
wind action; however, even though when not designed to resist side load,
the structure will present a “free side resistance”,
v0 is the wind speed associated to the “free side resistance”, and
CR and α, are parameters of the initial cost function.
If equation (4.2.7) is normalized regarding C0, we have:
Where K is equal to CR / C0, and multiplies a factor in terms of speeds.
Cost of expected losses in current value
As initial model, it is assumed that each time that the wind speed, v, is exceeded; there will
be a total loss of the construction. In general terms, the real strength of a structure is
uncertain but its mean value is superior to the nominal strength obtained when designed
4.2 II. 11
with a determined wind speed. However, when the speed associated to the design
nominal strength is exceeded, not necessarily a total loss is present and only probabilistic
affirmations can be given about the value of the losses. Also, even though the acting
speed does not exceed the design nominal speed, it is possible that partial failures can be
presented. Consider the previous in the model, would force to have to define vulnerability
ratios to include them in formal way in the calculation of the losses. Nevertheless, it has
been observed that the use of a more refined method would not provide considerable
improvements. Therefore, the optimization calculations were carried out determining only
relative levels of expected total costs of structures at different points of the country.
Taking into account that, by one side, Rosenblueth (1976) assumes that the danger
follows a Poisson process (the extreme events are independent) and that the current value
of the money can be properly described by an exponential function and, on the other,
Ordaz et al. (1989) establishes that the failure cost not only is the cost of the construction
as such, but have to be added the costs of losses for operation, cultural, social, etc.
outputs, in such a way that, in general, the cost of the losses is greater than the initial cost
of the construction, then, the cost of the expected losses, included the direct or indirect
losses, and updated to current value, Cp(v), can be expressed as:
Where CI(v) is defined in the equation (4.2.7), and:
CL is the cost of direct or indirect losses in case of a structural failure,
v(v) is the excess rate of the demand that produces the failure when designed
for a wind speed v, and
μ is the annual net rate of discount of the value of money.
If the factor Q = CL / CI is defined as the factor that measured the structural importance in
terms of -direct and indirect- losses and the initial cost of the construction, equation (4.2.9)
is expressed as:
Where:
is a factor that measured the structural importance in terms of the –

direct and indirect- losses and the initial cost of the construction,
4.2 II. 12
CI(v) is the initial cost of the construction, given by equation (4.2.7),
CL is the cost of direct and indirect losses in the case of a structural

failure,
v(v) is the excess rate of the demand produced by the failure when
designed for a wind speed v, and
μ is the annual net rate of discount of value of money.
In this way, the total cost of equation (4.2.9) that shall be optimized is expressed as:
Were:
CT is the total costs that integrates the initial cost of the construction plus those
costs due to direct and indirect losses, updated to current value, and
is given by equation (4.2.8).
Determination of optimal speeds
The purpose of the optimization process described in the previous point was not to carry
out detailed calculations to determine strictly the values of wind optimal speeds, but carry
out iterative calculations, assuming that certain design wind speeds are optimal values for
determined sites at the Mexican Republic and, from these values, obtain the optimal
distribution of speeds for the rest of the Mexican territory. This is essentially the focus
adopted by Esteva and Ordáz (1988) to propose the seismic regionalization of the country
and followed in the versions of 1993 and 2008 of Chapter 3 Seism design of this same
manual, described next in a brief way.
Initially, it was supposed that the common structures are those which loss is not especially
undesirable and that, also, the cost of losses is not excessive compared with the value of
the same construction.
The optimization at any site leads to a multiple solution, that is, there are several values
(optimal design speeds) that satisfy the minimum value of the functions of total cost. In
order to find a unique solution there were defined restrictions that consist on fixing values
specified as theoretical optimum representative of the minimum, intermediate and
maximum speed values in the Mexican Republic, therefore, three reference sites were
4.2 II. 13
selected: the City of Mexico, Cancun and Monterrey (see Table 4.2.1). Next it was iterated
for searching the values of K and α, (see equations [4.2.8) and (4.2.11)] that would make
the speeds of Table 4.2.1 were the optimal ones of these sites and that, for Group B
structures, Q equal to 5. These values are hard to quantify but their accuracy would not
bring important improvements regarding the estimations considered here. The obtained
values were K = 14 and α = 4.3; the units of K shall be homogeneous with regard to wind
speeds and the exponent α is dimensionless. Once determined the values of K and α,
there were obtained the optimal speeds for the rest of the country represented in the
isotach maps associated with different values of Q.
Table 4.2.1 WIND SPEED CONSIDERED AS THEORETICAL OPTIMAL FOR COMMON STRUCTURES
(GROUP B) IN THREE REFERENCE SITES
Site Speeds considered optimal (km/h)
Mexico City 118
Monterrey 142
Cancun 195
In this description the optimization process applied to aeolian danger, the greater
importance structures are essential structures, which loss is not especially desirable. In
general, this is not about structures particularly expensive, but their loss is undesirable
because of the costs that they turn useless, of their failure, are big. For the previous, it is
reasonable to consider that Q (see equation 4.2.10) is directly proportional to the structure
importance (due to the cost of the losses), while the factors K and α (associated to the
construction costs) stay constant when the same type of construction is kept. It is
considered that the initial cost of the structures is the same, either important or common,
and only exist differences in the costs of future losses.
Finally, the optimal speed values were obtained for different values of Q for the considered
sites (see Table 4.2.1) and other two of control for the case of La Paz and Guadalajara,
finding a reasonable approximation.
Likewise, it was found that for Q = 15, reasonable values are obtained for the design of
Group A structures in zones of intense aeolian danger. In Table 4.2.2 are shown the
values of the speeds related with Q = 5 and Q = 15 and their corresponding return periods,
for the selected reference and control sites. The maps of optimal speeds obtained for
these values of Q are those presented in point 4.2.2.2 of the Volume of
Recommendations.
4.2 II. 14
Table 4.2.2 SPEEDS AND PERIODS OF OPTIMAL RETURN OF THE REFERENCE AND CONTROL SITES
CONSIDERING TWO LEVELS OF STRUCTURAL IMPORTANCE GIVEN BY Q
Optimal speed
Site Q Optimum return period
(km/h)
Mexico City 5 132 598
Monterrey 5 167 410
Cancun 5 191 47
Guadalajara 5 125 574
La Paz 5 180 90
Mexico City 15 138 1,680
Monterrey 15 177 1,358
Cancun 15 239 188
Guadalajara 15 132 1,563
La Paz 15 210 299
It must be noted that the excess probability of a speed given in a useful life period, N, is
different to the probability that such speed is exceeded.
The desired excess probability for a useful life period, N, in years of a structure is
calculated with equation:
Where:
P is the probability that the wind speed, VT (wind speed, in km/h, with a return
period, T), exceeds at least one time in N years, dimensionless,
T is the return period of the speed VT, in years, and
N is the exposure period or useful life of the structure, in years.
From equation (4.2.6) is observed that if the useful life period, N or the return period, T, is
changed, then the excess probability, P, is modified. In Table 4.2.3 are shown the values
of P for different T and N.
Table 4.2.3 EXCESS PROBABILITY, P(%), ACCORDING TO THE RETURN PERIOD, T, AND THE USEFUL
LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE, N
Useful Return Period, T (years)

life, N
(years) 10 50 100 200 400 800 1600 2000
20 88 33 18 9.5 4.9 2.5 1.2 1
30 96 45 26 14 7 4 1.9 1.5
40 98 55 33 18 9 5 2.5 2
50 99 63 39 22 12 6 3 2.5
100 99.9 87 63 39 22 12 6 4.9
4.2 II. 15
4.2.3 EXPOSURE FACTOR, Frz
The change of terrain roughness develops a covering that forms an influence volume that
varies with the height according to the new wind roughness below. The length of this
influence zone is valid for roughness distant from the structure up to a third of the gradient
height. The characteristics of the wind flow will change in asymptotical way with height
when finding a new roughness (see Figure 4.2.3).
Figure 4.2.3 Change in the Category of terrain
Therefore, when changed the type of roughness, a correction to exposure factor, Frz, shall
be carried out, this is made at the direction up wind to down direction, to the foundation
(desplante) site of the structure.
Most of the structures are on homogeneous terrains with several kilometers of up wind
development but the terrain with more influence is that having a length between 10 and 20
times the structure height, up wind. In the Category of terrain with length between 0 and
10 times the structure height, the wind loads are only affected at the lower half of the
4.2 II. 16
structure. The land with length greater than 20 times the structure height, up wind, is the
terrain that determines the loads on the structure but this influence decreases when
increasing the distance from the structure to up wind.
Next the procedure recommended in the norm AS/NZS 1170.2 (2005) is described, which
indicated when and how the exposure factor, Frz shall be corrected, for the analysis
direction and roughness of the land in question.
The exposure factor correction will be made when the changes on the roughness of the
terrain, for a given direction, are present within an average distance, Dp, defined in Table
4.2.4. On the contrary, it is not necessary to carry out any correction to the exposure
factor.
Table 4.2.4 AVERAGE DISTANCE ACCORDING TO THE STRUCTURE HEIGHT
Structure height Average distance, Dp,

(m) Up wind of the structure
h < 50 1000
50 ≤ h ≤ 100 2000
100 ≤ h ≤ 200 3000
200 ≤ h 4000
NOTE: h is the reference height as described in point 4.3 of the Volume of Recommendations, for each type of
structure
The exposure factor corrected by changes of roughness, Frzc, will be represented by the
length weighty average of each roughness different of the structure terrain up wind; in this
way can be determined a delay distance, xj, in each change of terrain Category. In Figure
4.2.3(b) is given an example to determine such delay distance.
The delay distance, xj, in meters, is calculated with the following expression:
Where:
z is the height, in meters, of the influence covering for which is desired to

obtain the value xj [Figure 4.2.3(a)]; it will be equal to the structure total
height H when desired to obtain the greatest value of xj,
xj is the delay distance, in meters, measured from a new Category of terrain

starts, up to a point where the height z is equal to the covering height, hj
[see Figure 4.2.3(a)], and
4.2 II. 17
z0,r the greatest of the two roughness lengths, of two Categories of adjacent
terrains. The roughness lengths are given in meters and are:
For Category 1 = 0.002,

For Category 4 = 2.0
To evaluate the corrected exposure factor, the following steps shall be followed:
1) Determine the average distance Dp, of Table 4.2.4, which will be function of the
structure height,
2) Evaluate the delay distance of xj, with equation (4.2.13), for different heights (z) of
interest, not greater than the structure height and for each roughness within the
average distance,
3) Within the average distance will be defined the Categories of the terrain that will
affect the exposure factor,
4) Finally, obtain the corrected exposure factor, Frzc, by the following expression [see
the example in Figure 4.2.3(b)]:
Where:
Frzj is the exposure factor calculated with the expressions of point 4.2.3 of the
Volume of Recommendations, for the terrain Category j, dimensionless,
for different heights (z),
xt,j is the new length of the Category j under study, see Figure 4.2.3(b), in
meters,
Dp is the average distance of Table 4.2.4, in meters, and
j is the number of Category of the terrain within the average distance.
On the other hand, with purpose to determine the values of α, c and δ, defined in Table
4.2.3 of Volume of Recommendations, it has been taken as basis a power variation of
wind speed with regard to the height of the different considered Categories of terrain and
to the speed average lapse of 3 seconds. Such variation was deducted from different
experimental studies on the world and is used by different international regulations. Other
authors as Deaves and Harris (1978) and Melbourne (1981b), based on the hypothesis of
general thermodynamics, propose variations of logarithmic type; these, in spite of being
interesting, have been rejected because assume steady atmosphere conditions, which is
not valid because the climatologic and topographical conditions that prevail in our country.
4.2 II. 18
Therefore, for a terrain belonging to Category 2, the variation of wind speed regarding the
height is given by:
Where:
Vz is the wind speed, in km/h, at a height z, in meters,
V10 is the gust regional speed allowed at a base height of 10 meters, in km/h,
for a Category 2 of the terrain, and
α2 is the exponent corresponding to the terrain with Category 2.
It is important to make clear that this equation is only valid for a terrain with Category 2.
However, since it is assumed that at a gradient height, δ, the speed intensity is the same
for any Category of terrain, the variation of the wind speed with height, for a Category n, is
determined with the following equation:
Where:
So, solving for speed for the terrain of Category n and taking the values of Table 4.2.3
(Volume of Recommendations) for a terrain with Category 2, it is obtained:
This last expression can also be stated in the following way:
Where it is deduced that:
4.2 II. 19
With the values of αn and δn given in Table 4.2.3 of the Volume of Recommendations,
the values of c are obtained for the four Categories of terrain, indicated also there.
Finally, when selected the values of α, c and δ for a particular site, the designer shall
foresee the possible changes, in time, in the roughness of the surrounding land where it is
desired to found the construction. This shall be made to keep the safety and good
operation of the structure during its useful life.
4.2.4 TOPOGRAPHY FACTOR, FT
In the case of a undulated terrain, the equations (4.2.6) to (4.2.8) of Volume of

Recommendations can overestimate the value of the topography factor. In these cases
the height and slope of the promontory or terraplein can be determined by the following
steps:
a) Locate the promontory or terraplein top.

b) In a promontory or terraplein, trace several segments of 500 m long from the
promontory or terraplein top to the windward slope and obtain the average slope of
each segment.
c) The starting point of the promontory or terraplein will be that where the slope on
one of the segments is smaller than or equal to 0.05.
d) With the stating point and the top can be obtained the height Ht and the slope to
considerate in equations (4.2.6) to (4.2.8) of the Volume of Recommendations.
For the particular case where, the structure distance to the terrain top, Xt, and the
reference height of the structure, measured from the terrain average level, zt, is equal to
zero, the topography factor value is provided in the following Table 4.2.5.
Table 4.2.5 TOPOGRAPHY FACTOR FOR Xt = 0 AND zt = 0
NOTE: Interpolation is allowed to obtain intermediate values
4.2 II. 20
4.2.5 BASE DYNAMIC PRESSURE, qz
The basic value of air density considered to calculate pressures at sea level and 15°C, is
ρ= 1.225 kg/m3. Taking the mean value and transforming it for being consistent with the
units used in this chapter, we have:
In the last expression, kgf represents the units of kilogram-force in the mks system but, for
simplicity, in general the subindex f is eliminated.
It is interesting to note that, strictly, the air density varies with height from the footprint level
and also present changes if the air mass contains other particles due to high
contamination levels, to drag conditions of powders or rain drops in regions where strong
storms or hurricanes occur. These alterations are despicable for practical application;
however, the density value use to increase locally due to the variation produced by the
content of other particles, as the case of some codes. If it is desired to take into account
this change of density, it is recommended to increase 10% the value of 0.047 that appears
in the calculation of the base dynamic pressure.
On the other hand, if it is desirable to reject the variation that the air density has with the
temperature change, the simplified equation of G can be used:
Where hm represents the height, in km, above the sea level at the footprint (desplante) site.
4.2 II. 21
REFERENCES
Aguirre, J. E.; Sánchez Sesma, J. (1986), “Probabilistic considerations in transmission line

wind design for Mexico”, Probabilistic Methods Applied to Electric Power Systems,
Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Toronto, Canada, edited by Ontario
Hydro, 11-13.
Aguirre, J. E.; Sánchez Sesma, J. (1983), “Actualización de los valores de diseño por
viento en líneas de transmisión”, Reporte Interno núm. 3245, Departamento de Equipos
Mecánicos, Instituto de Investigaciones Eléctricas, México.
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 (2005), “Structural design actions, Part 2: Wind actions”, Australia
Standards and New Zealand Standards, April.
Benjamín, J. R.; Cornell, C. A. (1970), “Probability, statistics and decision for civil
engineers”, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Bowen, A. J. (1983), “The prediction of mean wind speeds above simple 2D hill shapes”, J.
of Wind Eng. And Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 15, pp. 259-270.
Davenport, A. G. (1961), “The Application of Statistical Concept to the wind loading of

Structures”, Journal of the Structural Division Proceeding of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, paper 6480, pp. 449-472.
Deaves, D. M.; Harris, R. I. (1978), “A mathematical model of the structure of strong

winds”, Report 76, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London,
England.
Durst, C. S. (1960), “Wind speeds over short periods of time”, The Meteorological
Magazine, Vol. 89, No. 1, 056, July, pp, 181-187.
Esteva, L.; Ordaz, M. (1988), “Riesgo sísmico y espectros de diseño en la República

Mexicana”, Memorias del Simposio Nacional sobre Ingeniería Sísmica, Guadalajara,
México.
Esteva, L. (1970), “Regionalización sísmica de México para fines de ingeniería”, Serie

Azul de Instituto de Ingeniería, pp-246, México.
Esteva, L. (1969), “Seismic risk and seismic design decisions”, Seminar on Seismic
Design for Nuclear Power Plants, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Mass., U. S. A.
López, A. et al. (2007), “Actualización de Isotacas en la República Mexicana para fines de

diseño contra viento de líneas de transmisión y subtransmisión y subestaciones eléctricas”,
4.2 II. 22
Informe IIE/42/13083/I01/F/DC, Gerencia de Ingeniería Civil, Instituto de Investigaciones

Eléctricas, Marzo, México.
Mackey, S.; Cheong Chuen, C. E.; Lam, R. (1970), “Gust factors”, Proceedings of the
seminar: Wind loads on structures, National Science Foundation, Japan Society for
Promotion of Science, University of Hawaii, 19-24 October, pp. 191-202.
Melbourne, W. H. (1981a), “The structure of wind near the ground”, Course Notes on the
Structural and Environmental Effects of Wind on Buildings and Structures, Chapter 2,
Monash University, Australia.
Ordaz, M.; Jara, J. M.; Singh, S. K. (1989), “Riesgo sísmico y espectros de diseño en el
estado de Guerrero”, Informe conjunto de II-UNAM y del Centro de Investigación Sísmica
AC de la Fundación Javier Barros Sierra al Gobierno del estado de Guerrero, Instituto de
Ingeniería, UNAM, proyectos 8782 y 9745, México.
Rodríguez Cuevas, N. (1964), “Aplicación de la estadística de extremos a la

determinación de velocidades del viento para diseños estructurales”, Instituto de
Ingeniería, UNAM, México.
Rosenblueth, E. (1976), “Optimum design for infrequent disturbances”, J. Structural Div.

ASCE, 102, 1807-1825.
Vellozzi, J.; Cohen, E. (1968), “Gust response factors”, Journal of the Structural Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, ST 6.
Venkatesworlu, B. et al. (1989), “Variation of wind speed with terrain roughness and
height”, IE(I) Journal-CI, Vol. 69, Madras, India, January.
Wood, D. H. (1982), “International boundary layer growth following a step change in

surface roughness”, Boundary Layer Meteorology, Vol. 22, pp. 241-244.
4.2 II. 23
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
NOMENCLATURE
Aa Reference area, in m2
Az Structure area or part of it on which the design pressure, pz, acts, in

m2
b Structure or structure member width normal to wind direction, in m
Cau Drag coefficient for the isolated fitting, dimensionless
Cf Force coefficient by friction at the wind direction, dimensionless

Cpe External pressure coefficient, dimensionless
Cpi Internal pressure coefficient, dimensionless
d Structure or structural member length parallel to the wind direction, in
m
da Distance parallel to the wind direction of the porous surface, in m
Ff Friction force that acts at the wind direction, in N
h Billboard height, in m
Mean height of the construction, in m
hc Height measured from the terrain level to the adjacent canopy or

cover, in m
KA Pressure reduction factor by area size, dimensionless
Kin Correction factor by interference

KL Local pressure factor, dimensionless
KP Pressure reduction factor by porosity, dimensionless
Lc Length of the adjacent canopy or cover, in m
pz Acting pressure on the structure, evaluated at the height z, in Pa
Re Reynolds number, dimensionless
V Flow speed, in km/h
Greek symbols
γ Slope angle of the roof regarding the horizontal, in degrees
4.3 II. 1
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
ΔCat Additional drag coefficient in a tower, due to fittings, dimensionless
Solidity ratio, dimensionless

Effective solidity ratio, dimensionless
μ Air viscosity, in kg·m/s
Air kinematic viscosity, in m2/s
ρ and μ Air density and viscosity, respectively in homogenous units
4.3 II. 2
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3.1 LIMITATIONS
The static analysis is adequate for the most common constructions relatively rigid, such as
those of low and mean height. Likewise, this procedure shall be applied for the design of
coatings, such as screens, and support elements that are part of facades of any type of
structures, tall or not.
The design of coatings and its supporting elements has especial importance due to safety
and economy reasons. The experience shows that the failures of these are due to high
local pressures and because of that in the current regulations and in this same point are
recommended procedures elaborated to determine, in the most precise way, the local
requests.
In order to apply this method, it is not necessary to have a detailed knowledge about the
dynamic properties of the constructions, since the contribution of the mean pressures
(static) produced by the wind is that of major transcendence. Even if, recommendations
for certain types of structures, where it is not necessary to calculate the fundamental
period, were given, it is desirable that, as far as possible, this period be determined to
select, in the most precise way, the procedure for obtaining the loads (static or dynamic),
since have been recorded failures in low height and very flexible constructions, such as
warehouses where resonance problems have been confirmed. For some particular cases,
Harris and Crede (1976) for obtaining the fundamental period of vibrations can be
consulted.
4.3.2 PRESSURES AND FORCES DUE TO THE WIND ACTION
4.3.2.1 Forces on closed constructions
In the definition of the formulas to calculate the wind pressures has been followed a format
similar to that of the Australian norm AS/NZS 1170.2.2002 (2005), which allows the user
determine when will be applied the local pressure factor, KL, the pressure reduction factor
by area size, KA and the suction reduction factor in porous surfaces, KP; this last one is
described in point 4.3.2.1.1 of this volume. The three factors will have a value by omission
equal to 1.0.
The pressure coefficient, as indicated in point 4.2.6 of the Volume of Recommendations,

is defined as the ratio between the real pressure exerted on a point of a construction and
the base dynamic pressure, that is:
In uniform flow, the value of this coefficient mainly varies with the structure shape and flow
characteristics represented by the Reynolds number, Re, which is dimensionless and
4.3 II. 3
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
defined as the ratio between the wind inertia force on the structure and the viscosity force
generated on a surface, as follows:
Where:
V is the flow speed, in km/h,
b is the dimension of the structure transversal to the wind flow, in m,
ρ and μ are the air density and viscosity, respectively, in homogeneous units, and
is the air kinematic speed, which has a value of 15 x 10-6 m2/s, for a
temperature of 20°C.
The values of the pressure coefficient included in the recommendations, come from mostly
from the norms AS/NZS 1170.2.2002(2005); these values have been defined based on
results of wind tunnel tests carried out in those countries and validated by means of a
comparison with the results of tests of the same type carried out in Canada, United States
of America, England, Switzerland and Germany.
Within the present point, the following types of coefficients that mainly take into account
the structure or structural element shape, are specified:
1) External pressure coefficient and internal pressure coefficient
This coefficients are defined on surfaces of walls and roofs of closed constructions.
The pressures obtained when applied, correspond to each one of the structure
surface.
2) Net pressure coefficient
It is applied to isolated roofs and low height billboards, obtaining the total pressure
on them, that is, includes the simultaneous push and suction effects.
3) Drag coefficient
When this coefficient is applied, total pressure is obtained at the wind flow direction
on a determined construction; such as it is the case, for example, of chimneys and
lattice towers.
4) Force coefficient
4.3 II. 4
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
It is used mainly in isolated structural element (angles, structural profiles, etc.) for
obtaining the forces in two orthogonal directions defined by the element cross
section axes, the axis x, Fx and the axis y, Fy. Such axes do not coincide
necessarily with the wind flow direction.
When required values of these coefficients for some construction type or shape not
recommended in this point, the designer could use other values published in the
specialized literature or international regulations, verifying that these are consistent with
the gust speed considered here and carefully reviewing that such values have been
obtained using an adequate criterion for the problem of interest.
The criterion of the designer plays and important role when selected correctly the
coefficient.
The pressure coefficients applied on a structure can vary during the stages its construction,
therefore, it is necessary to take necessary foresights for protecting it from adverse
conditions. The most common variation is the generation of internal pressures when the
structure is partially covered, for example, in the cases where its façade is incomplete, or
in structures formed by frames when the upper floors have already been built, but the walls.
This risk shall be contemplated at the time to program the construction works, with the
purpose to avoid that during its accomplishment, vulnerable structural shapes to the wind
action, are present.
4.3.2.1.1 External pressures
The external pressure coefficients are divided in total and local pressure coefficients. The
local pressure coefficients are used for the design of small structural elements, generally
up to 1 m2. The total pressure coefficients are applied when, the wind action on surfaces
generally greater than 10 m2, are analyzed.
In constructions with roofs with a slope angle greater than or equal to 10°, for a wind
direction perpendicular to the generatrices, θ = 0°, the suctions on the leeward walls are
increased as the slope decrease (see Table 4.3.1) of the Volume of Recommendations).
For horizontal roofs and those having a slope angle smaller than 10°, or on those where
the wind acts at a direction parallel to the generatrices, θ = 90°, the pressure on the
leeward walls is in function of the ratio between the two horizontal dimensions of the
structure.
Likewise, it has been observed that on buildings where the wind act at a direction parallel
to the walls, the magnitude of the suction on the side walls decreases as the windward
wall distance increases; this is reflected on the values of Table 4.3.2 (Volume of
Recommendations).
4.3 II. 5
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
The pressure coefficients shown in Tables 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 (Volume of
Recommendations) are related with extreme wind pressure loads on the surfaces of
walls and roofs of the presented structures. These coefficients also are associated with
the most critical condition for normal wind at the orthogonal directions of the structure
(taking into account variations at the wind direction of ± 45°).
- Pressure reduction factor for tributary area, KA
The values of the pressure reduction factor per tributary area for roofs and side
walls given in Table 4.3.4 (Volume of Recommendations), are used to correct the
peak loads presented when the tributary areas are big. Also they allow consider
the space correlation lack of the fluctuation of pressures on the roofs and side walls.
This reduction factor shall be used to calculate the loads as much on the main
structure elements as on coatings and supporting and fastening elements.
- Local pressure factor, KL, allows take into account that on certain small areas, the
wind pressure presents a value notably greater than the average value of the
surface of interest. By means of this factor, the instantaneous maximum values
that occur in different areas, are considered, and in specific way, those of the side
walls near to the windward corners and to the edges of roofs and ridgepoles. This
factor is applied to determine only the loads on coatings, supports and fasteners,
and will be equal to one, when calculated the total loads on the main surface.
The evaluation of loads by wind on coatings and their supporting elements is a hard
problem, due to the great number of involved factors. It is clear that the local loads,
especially on roofs, depend sensibly on the wind direction and construction geometry.
In high structures, the maximum external local suctions have a tendency be present close
to the windward edge.
Other aspect that can be important is that some coating surfaces are porous. In this case,
the suction external pressures are small due to the air flow that circulates through the
pores induces a negative pressure on the internal area of the exposed area. If the
designer considers necessary to take into account this effect, the reduction of these
negative pressures (suction) is carried out as explained following.
- Negative local pressure reduction factor on roofs and side walls, KP
When the solidity ratio, (defined as the quotient between the solid area of a
surface and the total area of this), of a main surface coating is smaller than 0.999
and exceeds 0.99, the negative external pressures (suctions) shall be multiplied by
the reduction factor, KP, provided in Table 4.3.1. For the other cases, KP will be
considered equal to 1.0.
4.3 II. 6
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Table 4.3.1 NEGATIVE PRESSURE REDUCTION FACTOR, KP, FOR SURFACE ZONES WITH
POROUS COATINGS
NOTE: da is the distance parallel to the wind direction of the porous surface, in m
The roofs of tiles or walls with windows having small ventilations are examples where the
factor KP shall be used. It is important to emphasize that this factor only is applied to
negative external pressures.
4.3.2.1.2 Internal pressures
The internal pressures generated within the closed structures could be positive or negative,
depending on their permeability or localization and opening size. It shall be mentioned
that the internal pressure value determined according with the recommendations of this
point will be constant for all internal surfaces of the construction.
The estimation of internal pressures represents a hard problem and a controversy source
for the designers. The difficult to establish them mainly is due to the determination of
permeability or the presence of dominant openings. However, it has been demonstrated
(Holmes, 1979) that once known this information, the simple rules of Table 4.3.7 (Volume
of Recommendations) provide a good estimation of the peak internal pressures on a
construction.
In this section, the openings have been defined as those areas that can be precisely
determined, such as those intentional or potential integrated by doors, windows, openings
for air conditioning and roof louvers. It is common to talk also of dominant openings, which
shall be considered as those having the greater influence on the internal pressures on the
building of interest.
Frequently, the designer asks if in the case of strong winds shall or shall not consider open
a door or window that normally is closed. For not cyclonic regions, is not yet established
the criterion to follow in this situation, since depends on the use that the structure will have
and if there is or not protection for the window or door in order that resist the wind direct
pressure or possible impact of materials dragged by it. In regions prone to cyclones,
commonly it is required to carry out a design for the dominant openings of the windward
4.3 II. 7
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
wall, unless it is provided a protection against the damage that the debris dragged by wind
could cause.
For the purposes of this section, the closed constructions can be permeable or with
openings. The permeability is understood as the quantity of hollows or cracks originated
by the allowed tolerances in the structure construction. For its part, an opening is
determined by open windows or doors. As reference, the typical permeability of a group of
offices or a house with all its windows closed varies between 0.01% and 0.2% the area of
the walls; in the industrial and agricultural structures this permeability can become up to
0.5%. The walls of concrete or other material specifically detailed to avoid the air passing,
can be considered impermeable.
In some cases, the value of Cpi can be limited or controlled within the desired values by an
appropriate distribution of permeability on walls and roofs, or through placing ventilation
devices in determined places that result in an adequate pressure coefficient. An example
of that is the installation of a fan at the ridgepole of a roof with low slope, so then, under
any wind direction, the roof lifting force is reduced.
In constructions where used internal pressurizing, shall be taken into account this
additional pressure. The manufacturers of the pressurizing system shall provide the
internal pressure values to consider.
The most critical cases that include an internal pressure are usually those with a dominant
opening on the windward wall [condition (a) of Table 4.3.7(b) of the Volume of
Recommendations]. A big opening, such as an open or lacking metallic shutter, can
produce a internal pressure coefficient value equal to the external pressure coefficient of
such wall.
The conditions 1 to 3 of Table 4.3.7 (a) (Volume of Recommendations) specify values of

the internal pressure coefficients for constructions without intentional openings or with
openings that can be considered as closed during strong winds. A case not considered in
Table 4.3.7(a) (Volume of Recommendations) is that of permeable roofs. It is suggested
that these are considered within the condition 2, in a way that if one or more walls are
permeable and the roof too, and the wind acts normally to the permeable wall, a value of
Cpi = 0.2 can be considered; if the wind acts perpendicular to the impermeable wall, it is
appropriate to use a value Cpi = -0.3.
An important effect on long structures with rough surfaces are friction forces that only
when the ratio or d/b of the construction (see Figure 4.3.2 of Volume of
Recommendations) is greater than 4, shall be added to the normal forces acting on side
walls and roofs of closed buildings. These friction forces shall be determined as explained
next:
-Drag force by friction, Ff, for rectangular buildings
4.3 II. 8
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Where:
Ff is the force by friction, in N, acting at the wind direction and parallel to the
surface,
Cf is the force coefficient by friction at the wind direction, dimensionless,
= 0.01 for uniform surfaces without corrugations or ribs, or with them but
parallel to the wind direction
= 0.02 for surfaces with corrugations transversal to the wind direction,
= 0.04 for surfaces with ribs transversal to the wind direction,
These values will be applied for friction forces action from a windward wall
distance equal to or 4b, the smallest, the friction coefficient will be
equal to zero for any surface and therefore, acting friction force will not
be considered.
qz is the base dynamic pressure of wind at the height , in Pa,
b is the structure width, normal to the wind direction, in m,
d is the structure length, parallel to the wind direction, in m, and
is the cover average height, in m (see Figure 4.3.2, Volume of

Recommendations).
The first term of these two equations represents the friction force on the roof and the
second term the friction force of walls. The terms are given separately to allow the use of
different values of Cf and qz, corresponding to different surfaces.
The value of the friction force coefficient, Cf, depends on the surface roughness. From
here that on surfaces with ribs or aligned projections perpendicular to wind direction (for
example, a side wall with ribs fro floor to roof) considerable great forces are generated
than on areas with ribs parallel to this same direction.
4.3 II. 9
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
4.3.2.2 Constructions of horizontal roofs with sloped ends
The pressure coefficients presented in the section of recommendations are based on the
supposition that the slopes of the ends are smaller than 10°. However, the pressure
coefficients for the roof will be selected from Table 4.3.3 (Volume of Recommendations)
considering the wind direction and the zone required analyzing (windward cover, leeward
cover, transversal cover). In order to determine the pressures on the flat sector of the roof,
for =0° shall be used the same values than for the leeward cover and, for = 90° the
same values than for the transversal covers.
4.3.2.3 Constructions with multiple span roofs (γ < 60°)
The pressure coefficients presented in the Volume of Recommendations for

constructions with multiple span roofs, which slope is smaller than 60°, were obtained from
measurements in wind tunnel such as are described in Holmes (1987).
4.3.2.4 Circular arch cover
To date, the tests carried out in wind tunnel still are few for circular arch covers. The most
recent studies reported in the Australian norm AS/NZS 1170.2.2002 (2005) are based on
the experiments made by Holmes and Paterson (1993a) and by Cheung et al. (1992). The
cover surface can be subjected to positive or negative values due to the possible
turbulence of the wind flow.
However, the studies performed by NG (10}983) and Johnson et al. (1985) have been
considered that present more rational values which are those exposed in the Volume of
Recommendations. It is important to point out that in this study, the turbulence effects
with the cover deformation are not taken into account, but simply those due to the static
mean action for Reynolds number smaller than 105.
In very flexible covers, the designer shall take the necessary precautions to make them
rigid in a convenient way, with diaphragms on their edges (edge girder) and in zones
where local buckling effects could occur.
In general, in this type of covers only are used main elements parallel to the arch axis.
4.3.2.5 Isolated roofs
The net pressure coefficient values for isolated lean-to, gable, or inverted roofs are mainly
based on the wind tunnel tests described by Gumley (1981) and Gumley (1984). The
values shown in the corresponding tables include some adjustments based on natural
scale model tests carried out by Robertson et al (1985).
4.3.2.6 Canopies and covers adjacent to closed constructions
4.3 II. 10
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
The net pressure on a canopy when the wind acts at the normal direction to the wall that
supports it, depends on the ratio , (canopy height above the terrain/structure average
height) and the ratio hc/Lc (canopy height above the terrain/canopy width).
A short canopy located near to the upper end of a construction is subjected to pressures
similar to those of a wing of the roof. At the canopy upper face are present high speeds
that produce important suctions; on the contrary, at the lower face, a flow damming is
generated causing positive pressures. The net lifting pressure of the canopy depends
largely on the ratio hc/Lc.
When the canopy is placed at an intermediate zone of the wall regarding its height, a flow
damming occur as much at its lower face as at the upper face. In this case, the average
net pressure coefficient is low, but the turbulence produces peak pressures at the normal
and parallel directions to the adjacent wall; also, there is not dependence in the ratio hc/Lc.
The information regarding canopies also is applicable to roofs of small bleachers and other
cantilever, as long as the dynamic effects are not notable. In canopies and roofs of
bleachers with spans greater than five meters, the dynamic effects are considerable,
because the great flexibility of them; therefore, a more detailed analysis shall be carried
out or take into account, if appropriate, that stipulated in point 4.4 on Dynamic Analysis
(Volume of Recommendations).
4.3.2.7 Cantilever roofs
The equations cover the shape aerodynamic and dynamic response factors and generate
distributions of equivalent static load.
The response of cantilever roofs depend on the dynamic response to the wind action and
this response can be approximated by means of the modal frequency in the first mode.
This depends obviously on the boundary conditions at the supported edge and an
important reduction in the load can be gotten if applied slots at the edge. The dependency
on mass and damping is not as high as in other structural systems where the dynamic
response has influence.
4.3.2.8 Isolated billboards and walls
The provided pressure coefficients of isolated billboards and walls come from the wind
tunnel studies carried out by Holmes (1986) and Letchford (1985), respectively.
The pressures presented when the wind flow acts parallel to the plan of a billboard or wall,
are caused by the turbulence effects and the unsteady wind flow; therefore, the wind loads
are from pressure or suction.
4.3 II. 11
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
If a wall or billboard is placed adjacent and in right angle to a construction, the net
pressure on these is reduced close to the common edge. For this reason, when the length
of the adjacent construction is greater than the double of the billboard height (2h) or the
wall (2H), the reduced loads at the corresponding directions to 45° and 90° can be used.
Then, it is suggested that the values of the net pressure coefficient given for 2h to 4h or for
2H to 4H, be extended to the end of the windward corner; that is, they will be applied
within the distances from o to 4h or from 0 to 4H from the free windward end.
On the other hand, it is a common practice to install cyclonic mesh above the walls or
fences, which at the same time is covered with plants or sheets; this fact causes a
considerable increase of the area exposed to wind flow; therefore, in the calculation of
forces for the design, such situation shall be foreseen. Likewise, if an isolated billboard or
wall is constructed on the terraced roof of a building, the design speed shall be calculated
for this height and apply the topography factor corresponding to a promontory
4.3.2.9 Cylindrical silos and tanks
The coefficients that appear in Figure 4.3.6 (Volume of Recommendations) are based on
wind tunnel tests carried out with high Reynolds numbers by Sabransky (1984) and
MacDonald et al. (1988). The external pressure coefficient Cpe was obtained by
approximation with a Fourier series of six terms, with which, a reasonable radial
distribution of pressures is gotten. This coefficient depends on the ratio between height
and diameter of the cylindrical silos and tanks, as well as roughness of their walls. In case
that these present vertical ribs of their roughness is important, the variation of Cpe shall be
modified, for which it is recommended to consult to Ghiocel and Lungu (1975) and Sachs
(1978). The adequate estimation of roughness is a fundamental parameter in the design
of cylindrical silos, tanks, chimneys and towers.
The loads specified in point 4.3.2.9 (Volume of Recommendations) are applied to

isolated silos. In some situations, the grouping of silos can generate loads by wind very
different to those indicated. The designer shall ask the accomplishment of a specialized
study in the cases where there is doubt. When there is not information, the grouped silos
with spacing among them greater than two diameters can be treated as if they were
isolated. In order to calculate the loads by wind, a group of silos with spacing among them
smaller than 0.1 times the diameter, can be studied as only one structure and Tables 4.3.1
to 4.3.3 can be used. The loads for intermediated spacing can be obtained approximately
by means of a lineal interpolation. The spacing limits come from tests carried out by
MacDonald et al. (1990).
4.3.2.10 Forces in individual members
The drag coefficients or transversal push for bodies with straight edges normally depend
only on the body shape and can be extrapolated for any size and wind speed. When the
edges are rounded, their force coefficient is function of the Reynolds number. In the
4.3 II. 12
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
rectangular section prismatic elements, the drag coefficient essentially depends on the
aspect ratio, d/b; from hers that they are described with more detail in Appendix A. the
values provided in such appendix come from Delaney and Sorensen (1953), ESDU (1980),
Cheung (1983) and SIA (1991).
4.3.2.10.1 Isolated open frames
The equation recommended for this case comes from the studies carried out by Georgiou
and Vickery (1979).
4.3.2.10.2 Multiple span frames
The specified factors were derived from the study corresponding to Georgiou and Vickery
(1979). The effective solidity ratio, for members which cross section is circular, derived
from the work of Whitbread (1979), where experiments for critical and supercritical flow
were carried out.
4.3.2.10.3 Isolated lattice towers
Some lattice towers can be affected in an important way due to their dynamic response. It
is recommended to review if the design methods based on a static behavior are applicable.
The guyed towers present a dynamic response when:
• The frequency of the first mode is smaller than 1 Hz.

• Significant concentrations of combined mass occur with relatively slender columns.
• Fittings or significantly sensible to wind facilities are added (such as parabolic
antennas, for example)
• Located in great ice concentration zones.
The International Association of Shells and Spatial Structures, (IASSS, 1981) is a guide to
determine the parameters to be considered.
Studies accomplished on the dynamic response of the lattice towers have been carried out
by Bayar (1986), Holmes (1994), Holmes (1996a), Holmes (1996b), ESDU (1987) and As
3995 (1994). Other detailed methods are presented in BS 8100 (1986) and Tubemakers
of Australia (1987).
The towers with fittings are described in point 4.3.2.12 of the Volume of
Recommendations.
4.3.2.11 Chimneys and towers
4.3 II. 13
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
In many codes, the pressure coefficients are proposed as function of the Reynolds number
Re and surface roughness, for circular sections and rounded corners, see Cheung (1983)
and ESDU (1980).
The coefficients given in Table 4.3.22 (Volume of Recommendations) for circular and
rounded sections were proposed bases on wind tunnel tests carried by Delaney and
Sorensen (1953).
4.3.2.12 Telecommunication towers and fittings
It is considered as fitting of a tower the elements which are fastened to structural elements
of the same as it is the ascending ladder, guide bed, cables (life, signal, electric supply,
etc.), excluding any type of antennas.
In the analysis of this type of structures it is very important to observe that when having a
great number of fittings on one face, as the case of cables, it will obtained a notable
increasing in drag coefficients and consequently in the forces on the tower.
In the case of towers with fittings, it is supposed that the drag force of these fittings is
defined with regard to the reference areas, Aa and in the equation provided for ΔCat, the
fitting drag coefficient, Cau, is adjusted according with the tower section, Az (note that as
much Aa as Az are independent of the wind direction).
The expressions for the correction factor by interference, Kin, are similar to those of
ESDU(1981) and allow a reduction in the effective drag force when the tower protects the
fitting and vice verse; probably they are more precise in the case where the fitting is
located within the tower, since they depend on the drag coefficient and the solidity of the
tower without fittings and not from the drag and solidity of the fittings.
In some cases interference factors greater than one can be obtained. This is because the
wind speed is greater close to the fittings, generating major loads on a part of the tower,
Holmes et al. (1993b).
Regarding the antennas fastened to the tower, there are provided the parameters to be
considered for the calculation of the forces as much in UHF antennas as in microwave
antennas which in the cell telephony field are used frequently. The methods of the
recommendations provide reasonable values of the wind forces, although, doubts could
rise about the antennas with new aerodynamic designs, for which it is recommended that
for special cases go to the antenna manufacturers since they shall provide information or
programs on the calculation of the antennas they design.
More information for the telecommunication towers design is obtained in ANSI/TIA-222-G-

2005(2006), ANSI/TIA-222-G-1(2007) and CSA S37-01(2006).
4.3 II. 14
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
REFERENCES
ACI 307-08,“Specification for the design and construction of reinforced concrete chimneys”,
ACI Committee 307, U. S. A.
ANSI/TIA-222-G-1 (2007), “Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna
Supporting Structures-Addendum 1”, Telecommunications Industry Association, EIA, April.
ANSI/TIA-222-G-2005 (2006), “Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and

Antennas”, Telecommunications Industry Association, EIA, August.
AS 3995-1994 (1994), “Design of steel lattice towers and masts”, Australian Standard.
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 (2005), “Structural design actions. Part 2: Wind actions”, Australian
AS/NZS 1170.2 Supplement 1:2002 (2002), “Structural design actions – Wind actions –
Commentary” (Supplement to AS/NZS 1170.2:2002), Standards Australia/Standards New
Zealand.
ASCE/SEI 7-05 (2006), “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures”,
ASCE Standard, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Bayar, D. C. (1986), “Drag coefficients of latticed towers”, Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, pp. 417-430.
BS 6399-2:1997 (2002), British Standard, “Loading for buildings. Part 2: Code of practice
for wind loads”, BSI 31, July.
BS 8100: Part 1 (1986), “Lattice towers and masts, Part I. Code of practice for loading”.
British Standards Institution, London, England.
BS 4076 (1978), “Specification for steel chimneys”, British Standards Institution, London,
England.
BS 8100:Part 2 (1986), “Lattice towers and masts, Part 2. Guide to the background and
use”, British Standards Institution, London, England.
BS EN 1991-1-4 (2005), British Standard. Eurocode 1: “Actions on structures. Part 1-4.

General actions – Wind actions”. European Committee for Standardization.
Cermak, J. E. (1986), “Application of fluid mechanics to wind engineering”, Freeman

Scholar Lecture, J. of Fluids Eng., ASME, Vol. 97, No. 1.
4.3 II. 15
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Cheung, C. K. (1983), “Effect of turbulence on the aerodynamics and response of a

circular structure in wind flow”, Ph. D. Thesis. Monash University, Melbourne.
Cheung, J. C. K.; Holmes, J. D.; Melbourne, W. H. (1992), “High Reynolds member wind
tunnel measurements of pressures on a curved roof building”, Proceedings of the 11th
Australian Fluids Mechanics Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
CSA S37-01 (2006), “Antennas, Towers and Antenna-Supporting Structures”, Canadian

Standards Association, Canada, (updated 2004, 2006).
Delaney, N. K.; Sorensen, N. E. (1953), “Low-speed drag of cylinders of various shapes”,

Technical note 3038, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.
Designers’ Guide to EN 1991-1-4 (2007), Eurocode 1: “Actions on structures, general

actions. Part 1-4: Wind actions”, Thomas Telford Publishing.
Designers’ Guide to EN 1990 (2002), Eurocode: “Basis of structural design”, Thomas

Telford Publishing.
Diniz, S.; Simiu, E. (2005), “Probabilistic description of wind effects and local factors for
database – assisted design”, J. Struct. Eng., 131, pp. 507 – 516.
DS 410 E: 2004, “Code of Practice for Loads for the Design of Structures”, Norm for last
pa konstruktioner. Danish Standards Association.
ESDU (1987), “Calculation methods for along-wind loading, Part 2: Response of line-like
structures to atmospheric turbulence”, Data Item 87035, Engineering Science Data Unit,
London, December (amended 1989).
ESDU (1981), “Lattice Structures, Part 2, Mean fluid forces on tower like space frames”,
Data Item 81028, Engineering Sciences Data Unit, London, (revised 1988, 1993).
ESDU (1980), “Mean forces, pressures and flow field velocities for circular cylindrical
structures: single cylinder with two-dimensional flow”, data item 80025, Eng. Science Data
Unit (revised 1986).
Farquharson, F. B. (1958), “Wind forces on structures subject to oscillation”, Journal of the

Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 84, No. ST4.
Fritz, W. P.; Benkiewicz, B.; Flamand, O.; Ho, E.; Letchford, C.; Cui, B. (2005),
“International comparison of wind tunnel estimates of wind effects on an industrial building
model: Test-related uncertainties”, Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Structural safety and Reliability,
G. Augusti and G. Schueller, eds., University “La Sapienza”, Roma.
4.3 II. 16
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Georgiou, P. N.; Vickery, B. J. (1979), “Wind loads on building frames”, Proceedings, 5th
Ing. Conference on Wind Eng., Fort Collins, pp. 421-433.
Ghiocel, D.; Lungu, D. (1975), “Wind, snow and temperature effects on structures based
on probability”, Abacus Press, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, England.
Gumley, S. J. (1981), “Panel loading mean pressure study for canopy roofs”, University of
Oxford, Department of Eng. Science, OUEL Report 1380/81.
Gumley, S. J. (1984), “A parametric study of extreme pressures for the static design of
canopy structures”, J. of wind Eng. and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 16, pp. 43-56.
Harris, G. M.; Crede, C. E. (1976), “Shock and vibration handbook”, McGraw-Hill

Handbooks, New York, 2nd edition.
Holmes, J. D. (2007), “Wind loading of structures”, Taylor & Francis Group, U. S. A., 2nd
edition.
Holmes, J. D. (1996a), “Along-wind response of lattice towers, Part II: Aerodynamic

damping and deflections”, Eng. Structures, Vol. 18, pp. 483-488.
Holmes, J. D. (1996b), “Along-wind response for lattice towers, Part III: Effective load
distribution”, Eng. Structures, Vol. 18, pp. 489-494.
Holmes, J. D. (1994), “Along-wind response of lattice towers, Part I: Derivation of

expressions for gust response factors”, Eng. Structures, Vol. 16 pp. 287-292.
Holmes, J. D.; Paterson, D. A. (1993a), “Mean wind pressures on arch-roof buildings by

computation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Colloquium of Bluff Body Aerodynamics and its
Applications, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 40, Elsevier,
London.
Holmes, J. D.; Banks, R. W.; Roberts, G. (1993b), “Drag and aerodynamic interference on
microwave dish antenna, and their supporting towers”, J. of Wind Eng. and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol. 50, pp. 263-269.
Holmes, J. D. (1987), “Wind loading of multi-span buildings”, First Structural Engineering

Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 26-28 August.
Holmes, J. D. (1986), “Pressure and drag on surface-mounted rectangular plates and

walls”, 9th Australian Fluid Mechanics Conference, Auckland, Australia.
Holmes, J. D. (1979), “Mean and fluctuating internal pressures induced by wind”, Proc. 5th
Int. Conference on Wind Eng., Fort Collins, Colorado, U. S. A., pp. 435-450.
4.3 II. 17
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
IASSS (1981), “Recommendations for Guyed Masts”, Working Party No. 4, International
Association for Shell and Spatial Structures, Madrid.
ISO 4354:1997(E), “Wind actions on structures”, International Organization for

Standardization, Switzerland.
Johnson, G. L.; Surry, D.; NG, W. K. (1985), “Turbulent wind loads on arch-roof structures:
a review on model and full scale results, and the effect of Reynolds number”, Proceedings
of the Fifth U. S. National Conference on Wind Engineering, Lubbock, Texas, U. S. A., pp.
6-8, November.
Letchford, C. W. (1985), “Wind loads on free standing walls”, Department of Engineering

Science, Oxford University, OUEL Report 1599/85.
MacDonald, P. A.; Kwok, K. C. S.; Holmes, J. D. (1988), “Wind loads on storage bins, silos
and tanks I, point pressure measurements on isolated structures”, J. of Wind Eng. and
Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 31 pp. 165-188.
MacDonald, P. A.; Holmes, J. D.; Kwok, K. C. S. (1990), “Wind loads on circular storage
bins, silos and tanks. II. Effect of grouping”, J. of Wind Eng. and Industrial Aerodynamics,
Vol. 34, pp. 77-95.
Metal Building Manufacturers Association (2006), “Metal building systems manual”, Design
practices code of standard practice guide specifications nomenclature, U. S. A.
National Research Council of Canada (2005), “National Building Code of Canada”,

Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes.
NG, W. K. (1983), “The external and internal pressures induced under the turbulent wind
action on arch-roof structures”, M. Eng. Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering Science,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, April.
NS 3491-4 (2002), “Prosjektering av konstruksjoner. Dimensjonerende laster. Del 4:

Vindlaster”, Norsk Standard, Sprak:Nosk.
Robertson, A. P.; Hoxey, R. P.; Moran, P. (1985), “A full scale study of wind loads on
agricultural canopy structures and proposal for design”, J. of Wind Eng. and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Volume 21, pp. 167-205.
Rodríguez Cuevas, N. (1983), “Acción del viento en silos metálicos para almacenamiento
de granos”, Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM, México.
4.3 II. 18
4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS
Sabransky, I. J. (1984), “Wind pressure distribution on cylindrical storage silos”, M. Eng.

Sc. Thesis, Monash University.
Sachs, P. (1978), “Wind forces in engineering”, Pergamon Press, England.
Sadek, F.; Simiu, E. (2002), “Peak non-Gaussian wind effects for database – assisted low
rise building design”, J. Eng. Mech., 128(5), pp. 530-539.
SIA (1991), “Technische Normen Nr 160”, Normen fur die Belastungsannahmen, die
Inbetriebnahme und die Uberwachung der Bauten, Zurich, Switzerland, English version.
Simiu, E.; Miyata, T. (2006), “Design of Buildings and Bridges for Wind: A practical Guide
for ASCE-7 Standard. User and Designers of Special Structures”, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, N. J.
Simiu, E.; Scanlan, R. H. (1996), “Wind effects on structures: an introduction to wind

engineering”, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 3rd edition.
Tieleman, H. W.; Elsayed, M. A. K.; Hajj, M. R. (2006), “Peak wind load comparison:
Theoretical estimates and ASCE 7th, J. of Structural Eng., Vol. 132, No. 7, pp. 1150-1157.
Tubemakers of Australia (1987), “Wind forces on tubular structures – Design Manual”,

August.
Uniform Building Code (1997), Volume 2, “Structural Engineering Design”, Provisions.

International Conference of Building Office, U. S. A.
User’s Guide – NBC (2005), “Structural Commentaries”, (Part 4 Division B), Canadian
Commission on Building and Fire Code, National Research Council, Canada.
Whitbread, R. E. (1979), “The influence of shielding on the wind forces experienced by

arrays of lattice frames”, Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Wind Engineering,
Fort Collins, pp. 417-430.
4.3 II. 19
NOMENCLATURE
B2 Bottom response factor, dimensionless

b Dimension that represents the structure width, in m
b Tower average height, in m
Coefficient to obtain the exposure factor, dimensionless
b0 Structure base width, in m

bh Structure width at the height h, in m
Cp Force or drag coefficient, dimensionless
f1 Fundamental frequency, in Hz
FRD Dynamic response factor, dimensionless
F’rz Exposure factor for the mean speed, dimensionless
g Peak factor of the variable
g(t1/t2) Gust factor among average speeds on lapses of t1 and t2, dimension
less
h Dimension that represents the structure total height, in m
Iv(z) Turbulence intensity, evaluated at the height z, dimensionless
m(z) Structure mass per length unit, in kg/m
me Equivalent modal mass per length unit, in kg

mtotal Structure total mass, in kg
mr Generalized mass at the wind longitudinal direction, in kg
n1 Structure fundamental frequency, in Hz
n1m Modified fundamental frequency per concentrated mass, in Hz
pz Acting pressure on the structure, evaluated at the height z, in Pa
qz Base dynamic pressure evaluated at height z, in Pa
R2 Response factor in resonance, dimensionless
Wind mean speed
Vcrit Critical speed of periodical vortices appearance, in m/s
4.4 II. 1
V’D Design mean speed, in m/s

VR Gust regional speed, in km/h
V’R Gust regional speed, in km/s
w Total weight of the structure, in kg
w1 Modified tower total weight
w2 Weight of the tower and fittings placed above 5% of the tower height
Maximum response of expected peak response
Mean response
YFmax Maximum displacement transversal to wind flow, in m
z Height above the natural terrain level, to which it is desired to know
the design speed, in m
Greek symbols
α' Exponent of the speed variation with height, dimensionless
λm Exponent that determines the variation of modal shape with height,
dimensionless
σx Standard deviation of the response
Φ1(z) Fundamental modal shape, dimensionless
4.4 II. 2
4.4.1 LIMITATIONS
This procedure allows evaluate the wind loads considering the amplified response by the
dynamic interaction between the wind flow and the structure, particularly of those high and
slender structures with low damping.
To determine the wind effects using the dynamic method it shall be taken into account the
characteristics as much the air turbulence for the site of interest, that at the same time, is
in function of the height above the soil level and the surface roughness of the surrounding
terrain, as those of the construction, such as height, width, natural frequency of vibration
and damping.
From diverse experimental studies, it has been established that a structure dynamically
sensible to wind, will be that having a natural period greater than 1.0 s. This type of
structures presents an important contribution on the resonance dynamic response.
Likewise, it has been planted and observed that the maximum or peak response of the
structure, parallel to wind flow, can be divided in two components, one called the bottom
response, due to wind mean flow and the other called resonant response, due to the wind
fluctuations caused by the turbulence in the flow and the structure aerodynamic properties.
Davenport (1967) planted that the maximum response of a structure of lineal behavior,
which deformation is close to that of the natural mode of flexure, can be expressed as:
Where:
is the maximum response or expected peak response,
is the mean response,
σx is the response standard deviation, and
g is the variable peak factor.
The units of these parameters will be function of the effect under study speed,
displacement or force.
Davenport (1967) establishes that the Dynamic Response Factor (FRD) can be defined as
the ratio between the expected maximum response (displacement or force) of the structure
in a defined period of time (for example 10 minutes or 1 hour), and the mean response in
the same period of time. This is valid for stationary or quasi-stationary winds such as
those generated by strong winds in warm zones or tropical cyclones, but not for tornados
4.4 II. 3
or downburst winds. Therefore, the FRD can be expressed in terms of the pressure
variable x, or speed v, as:
Where:
is the wind mean speed,
B2 represents the bottom response, and
R2 is the resonance response.
In graphical way these components are represented in Figure 4.4.1.
This is an approximated focus of the structural response and the components are properly
estimated for certain types of structures (Holmes, 2007). The two components will depend
on the type of structure in question, as described next.
Figure 4.4.1 Response components, bottom B and resonant R responses
4.4.2 DETERMINATION OF THE MEAN SPEED, V’D
Given that the formulation of the dynamic response has been considered by several
international codes in terms of the speed associated to an average time of ten minutes, the
effects of the dynamic interaction between the wind flow and a structure are evaluated
from the design mean speed, V’D (in m/s). Due to practical simplicity, the expression
4.4 II. 4
(4.4.1) of Volume of Recommendations is presented, which transforms the gust regional

speed, VR, in the design speed with average time of ten minutes, V’D. The factor where
this transformation is carried out is given by the exposure factor for the mean speed, F’rz
described next.
4.4.2.1 Exposure factor for mean speed, F’rz
In this point is considered that the factor that establishes the wind mean speed variation
with height z, in function of the roughness of the surroundings terrain is F’rz, which allows
obtain the design speed for an average time of ten minutes. The gust regional speed, VR
can be transformed to such average lapse through the gust factor, g, as indicated in the
The gust factor can be determined from Figure 4.2.2 described in point 4.2.1 of this same
Volume of Comments. This gust factor is determined at 10 m high. From this figure is
obtained:
Where:
Therefore, the exposure factor for mean speeds of ten minutes will be as follows:
Where the constants and α’ are also associated to the average time of interest. The
values of these constants are given in Table 4.4.1 of the Volume of Recommendations
and were obtained from an adjustment by the least-squares, from the ratio proposed by
the European code BS EN 1991-1-4 (2005), on the speed variation with height.
4.4.3 ACTING PRESSURE ON STRUCTURES, pZ
The acting pressure, considering the dynamic effects, can be expressed as:
4.4 II. 5
Where FRD is a dynamic response factor and the variables pz, Cp and qz are defined in
point 4.4.3 of the Volume of Recommendations.
Provided that in this definition, the value of the base dynamic pressure, qz is in function of
the gust regional speeds, it is necessary to transform it to mean speeds of ten minutes and
consider it fluctuation in the dynamic response.
The last researches and international codes transform this pressure, qz, in mean effects of
ten minutes, dividing it by the factor:
Where Iv(z) is the wind turbulence index in a site. From this way, the acting pressure is as:
For practical simplicity, the numerator of the previous equation has been included within a
Factor of Dynamic Amplification, FAD, being:
In the following points, FAD is defined for different types of structures. FAD shall be applied
only on windward and leeward pressures for closed structures, considering the internal
pressures on these surfaces.
4.4.4 EQUIVALENT DYNAMIC FORCE AT THE WIND DIRECTION, Feq PRISMATIC

The statically equivalent dynamic force, is that producing the maximum effects of expected
peak effects on the structural response, such as moments, axial forces or displacements.
The maximum response is generated by the wind fluctuating load and, as indicated in
previous point 4.4.1, can be evaluated from three components:
a) Wind mean effect

b) Quasi-static or bottom or sub-resonant fluctuating response
c) Resonant response
The bottom component depends on the load effects and its fluctuations on the structure
surfaces. Likewise, this quasi-static component is caused by gusts with frequencies as
low as to excite any resonant response of the structure (see Figure 4.4.1).
4.4 II. 6
The resonant component includes an inertial force due to the mass distribution of the
structure and its natural frequency of vibration.
The dynamic response factor in equation 4.4.8) of this Volume of Comments, can be
defined as the ratio between the maximum response that includes the bottom and
resonance effects and that which ignores both effects. The denominator of this equation is
in fact, the response calculated using the “static” methods in different international codes
(Holmes, 2007).
For purposes of this manual, this dynamic response factor simply has been denominated
Dynamic Amplification Factor (FAD). This factor depends, in an important way, on the
dynamic properties of the different types of structures; therefore, hereafter this factor will
be mentioned adducing to different types of structures discussed in the Volume of
Recommendations.
4.4.4.1 Dynamic amplification factor for prismatic structures
The recommended dynamic amplification factor comes from the studies carried out by
Solari (1983a, b and c), and mainly considers that the structure has a uniform distributed
mass with predominant response on its fundamental mode of vibration lineal in flexure.
For the case of horizontal girders FAD will be used for cylindrical structures, but considering
their horizontal frequency and mode of vibration. This case does not apply to bridges for
which an expert on the matter shall be consulted.
4.4.4.2 Dynamic amplification factor for cylindrical structures
In this case, the expressions proposed by Solari (1983a, b and c) consider also that the
structure has a uniform distributed mass but considering its fundamental mode of vibration
parabolic in flexure.
Additional comments on the effects by transversal vibration and torsion in buildings
The buildings sensible to the wind turbulence shall be verified before longitudinal,
transversal and torsion effects, produced by the wind. In figure 4.4.2 the definition of the
three previous effects is shown.
The vibrations transversal to wind flow as those due to torsion, are mainly produced by the
leeward vortices; these vibrations are small for buildings with low height; however, as the
slenderness ratio increases, vortices are generates with height, increasing the wind forces
by torsion and transversal to wind direction. In general, the response at the transversal
direction and in torsion depends on the speed increment more than on the longitudinal
response; therefore, for high wind speeds, the transversal response can be greater than
the longitudinal one.
4.4 II. 7
Figure 4.4.2 Definition of the wind effects on a building
The vibrations transversal to wind flow as those due to torsion are produced mainly by the
leeward vortices; these vibrations are small for buildings with low height; however, as the
slenderness ratio increases, vortices are generated with height, increasing the wind forces
by torsion and transversal to wind direction. In general, the response in transversal
direction and torsion depends on the speed increment more than on the longitudinal
response; therefore, for high wind speeds, the transversal speed can be greater than the
longitudinal one. It is desirable to estimate the transversal and torsion response in
buildings with low damping and weight. Also, in low buildings with low torsional rigidity or
buildings with great eccentricities which natural frequencies in translation and torsion are
close one from other, also is desirable to estimate the wind loads that produce torsion.
There are a lot of references about the subject, among them are: Tallin and Ellingwood,
1985; Boggs et al. 2000; Kijewski and Kareem, 1998; McNamara and Huang, 2002; Xie
and Irwin, 1998; Kareem, 1985; Cheng et al. 2002; Shuguo et al. 2002; Young-Moon and
Ki-Pyo, 2002; Katagiri et al. 2002; Thepmongkorn et al. 2002; Katsumura et al. 2001;
Tamura et al. 1999; Tamura et al. 1996; Gu and Quan, 2004.
In the Japanese code AIJ (2005) a procedure to estimate the wind load due to torsion
effects is described; it can be applied to buildings under certain conditions. However, the
state of the art states a lot of unknown quantities to estimate adequately the response to
torsion.
4.4.5 EQUIVALENT DYNAMIC FORCE AT THE WIND DIRECTION, FEQ, FOR SELF
SUPPORTING TOWERS
4.4.5.1 Dynamic amplification factor for self supporting towers
4.4 II. 8
In this section is presented a procedure for the calculation of the amplification factor for
lattice type structures, supported directly on the terrain, and which members have a small
section in comparison with the width of the structure. This factor is recommended by the
Japanese code AIJ (2006).
In this procedure it is supposed that the fundamental modal shape given by the equation,
where the superior modes of vibration are rejected.
Then the generalized mass is calculated with:
If the vibration of the modal shape with height is taken as:
Then:
If the mass per height unit, m(z), is constant at height:
The coefficient λm can be calculated from an adjustment by the least-squares of the modal
shape of interest, from a model of discrete analysis.
For the calculation of the frequency of vibration of the tower shall be contemplated the
concentrated mass of the disks of the antennas and the mass due to all fittings placed on it.
For estimating in approximated way the fundamental frequency, f1, in Hz, of a lattice self
supporting tower, the following ratio (Madugula, 2002) can be used:
Where:
b is the average width of the tower, b = (bn + b0), in m, and
4.4 II. 9
h is the total height of the tower, in m.
If there is a concentrated mass in the structure due to the disks of antennas, the modified
fundamental frequency, n1m (Hz), can be calculated with:
Where:
w is the total weight of the tower, including all fittings,
w2 is the weight of the tower and fittings placed above the 5% of the tower
height, and
b0 is the base tower width, in m.
4.4.6 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF DEFORMABLE COVERS WITH CONICAL SHAPE
Currently there are a great number of several architectonic shapes of tensioned covers
formed by membranes, there are with conical, hyperbolical, arch, umbrella shapes, among
others (Lewis, 2003). Their geometrical design and static behavior can be found in
different references such as in Huntington (2004), Lewis (2003) and Buchholdt (1999).
However, their dynamic behavior is complex. For this type of structures it is suggested to
carry out a geometric no lineal dynamic analysis, step by step in time, with simulated gust
speed records.
The initial pre-stress of the membrane affects the shape of the cover and has an important
effect on the dynamic behavior of this type of structures. However, the height-span ratio
that covers the membrane has very low influence in the dynamic response. The values of
dimensionless coefficients suggested for the calculation of the displacements and the
stresses on conical shaped covers are taken from Chen et al. (2005), and were obtained
from wind tunnel tests. For other shapes of covers, the dynamic coefficients can be found
in Chen et al. (2006).
There are numerical techniques that allow quantifying the dynamic effects of wind on
tensioned membrane covers (Rank et al. 2003); however, they are for particular cases.
For that it is recommended that the dynamic effects are quantified in wind tunnel
experimental test with analytical models under the supervision of an expert on the subject.
4.4 II. 10
4.4.7 EQUIVALENT FORCES PERPENDICULAR TO THE WIND DIRECTION.

EFFECT OF PERIODICAL VORTICES
The detachment of vortices happens when these are alternatively separated at the
opposite sides of the structure. This produces fluctuations of the load perpendicular to the
wind direction. Important structural vibrations of resonance can occur if the frequency of
detachment of vortices is the same than the frequency transversal to the structure. This
condition is present when the wind speed is equal to the critical speed of appearance of
vortices, Vcrit. Normally, this critical speed is present with certain frequency so that can
produce fatigue of the material, for that, it is important the number of load cycles to which
the structure can be exposed.
The induced response by the detachment of vortices is integrated by a band width

response that can occur when the structure is moved or not, and a narrow band response
originated by the movement induced by the wind load.
The narrow band response is normally most important in reinforced concrete structures
and in heavy steel structures. The narrow band response is normally more important in
light steel structures.
It is recommended to take into account for the calculation of service conditions in some
structures, the number of times the design wind effects is exceeded during a period of 50
years, particularly those affected by fatigue accumulated with stresses from other load
sources. For that, it is necessary the calculation of the number of times the wind effect to
a certain level, is exceeded. For this calculation can consult Holmes (2007) and BS EN
1991-1-4:2005.
4.4.7.1 Critical speed of periodical vortices, Vcrit
The recommended values were adopted from BS EN 1991-1-4:2005.
4.4.7.2 Forces due to detachment of periodical vortices
The recommended expression was taken from BS EN 1991-1-4:2005.
4.4.7.3 Maximum displacement transversal to wind flow, YFmax
There are two methods to calculate the maximum amplitude of the structure at the
direction transversal to wind flow, YFmax (see BS EN 1991-1-4:2005). It is not possible to
compare the results of both methods since come from making different hypotheses;
neither is possible to combine both methods.
The second method is that recommended for the calculation of transversal displacements
due to the vibration at this direction, since they were carried out comparisons of different
4.4 II. 11
examples, being this the most rational method. This method can not be applied on line
groups or coupled cylinders.
Some simplifications for the calculation of the equivalent mass for particular cases are
described next:
Where:
m(z) is the mass per length unit, in kg/m,
h is the height or length of the structure or structural element span in

fundamental mode, and
mr is the generalized mass of the structure.
For cantilever structures with variation in their mass, me, can be approximated the average
value of m on the upper third of the structure, h3, (Figure 4.4.3).
The generalized mass is evaluated with the integral:
If the modal shape is lineal with height, , then:
4.4 II. 12
Figure 4.4.3 Geometric parameters for chimneys
If the mass per height unit of the building, m(z), is constant in the height:
For the case where the modal shape is:
Then:
If the mass per height unit of the building, m(z), is constant in the height:
For the case where the modal shape is:
4.4 II. 13
The evaluation of the integral that represents the generalized mass is obtained as:
Remaining:
For the case of a chimney is acceptable to assume:
The equivalent mass is:
The fundamental modal shape to flexure, Φ1(z), for buildings, towers and chimneys
embedded in the foundation can be calculated with:
Where the usual values of λm, are: λm = 0.6 for slender frames without bearing walls; λm =
1.0 for buildings structured in tube shape, with central walls and peripheral or slender
columns and wind bracings; λm = 1.5 for slender buildings embedded in the foundation
4.4 II. 14
structured by means of central shear walls; λm = 2.0 for self supporting towers and
chimneys and λm = 2.5 for steel towers formed by lattices. Also λm can be obtained from
an adjustment by the least-squares of the modal shape of a model of discrete analysis.
4.4.7.4 Recommendations to decrease the vibrations due to detachment of

periodical vortices
For avoiding the formation of vortices in cylindrical structures it is recommended the use of
bars or spoilers placed on the upper third of the construction and fastened in continuous
and spiral way to the external surface of the cylinder. If using tubes, their diameter shall
be equal to the twentieth part of the cylinder diameter and, if metallic plates, these shall
project from the cylinder surface a tenth part of the diameter of it. The thickness of the
tube or plate shall be at least of 10 mm (3/8 inch). In both cases, three spirals will be
placed distant one hundred and twenty degrees among them (see Figure 4.4.4); the pitch
among helixes will be five times the diameter of the chimney per turn.
Other solutions that can be taken to avoid vortices are:
1) Change the cylinder diameter for modifying its natural period.

2) Increase the moment of inertia increasing the thickness of hollow cylinders,
3) Modify the damping of the structure by means of other damping systems,
4) Change from cylindrical shape to troncoconical, and
5) Use guys or braces.
Figure 4.4.4 Disposition of bars or spoilers
4.4 II. 15
Another aspect that requires attention in the design process is the case of hollow
cylindrical constructions, such as thick wall steel chimneys, where local vibrations known
as ovalling effects of the cross section can be presented, which is shown in Figure 4.4.5.
This problem is eliminated when designing stiffening rings located at the top of the
chimney and critical sections. For their design see specific codes such as CICIND (1999).
Figure 4.4.5 Ovalling of the cross section of a slender cylindrical structure by effect of alternating
vortices
4.4.8 AEROLASTIC INSTABILITY
Instability by group effect in nearby constructions
For slender buildings (h/d > 4) and chimneys in group arrangements with h/d > 6.5, the
turbulence effect increases the detachment of vortices close to the structures and shall be
taken into account in the analysis.
Galloping
The galloping is a self-exited vibration of a flexible structure in the flexure mode

transversal to the wind direction. The sections prone to galloping are: L, I, U and T. The
ice formation in circular sections can convert a steady circular section to instable. The
oscillations by galloping start at a special speed known as start speed, VCG, and normally
the amplitudes of movement increase fast when the wind speed increases.
4.4 II. 16
REFERENCES
AIJ (2005), “Recommendations for Loads on Buildings, Chapter 6, Wind Loads”,

Architectural Institute of Japan.
ANSI/TIA-222-G-1 (2007), “Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna
Supporting Structures-Addendum 1”, Telecommunications Industry Association, EIA, April.
ANSI/TIA-222-G-2005 (2006), “Structural Standards for Antenna Supporting Structures

and Antennas”, Telecommunications Industry Association, EIA, August.
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 (2005), “Structural design actions, Part 2: Wind actions”, Australian
BS 8100-4:1995, (2003), “Lattice towers and masts, Part 4: Code of practice for loadings
of guyed mast”, British Standards.
BS 6399-2:1997, (2002), “Loading for buildings, Part 2: Code of practice for wind loads”,
British Standards.
BS EN 1991-1-4:2005, British Standard. Eurocode 1: “Actions on structures. Part 1-4,

General actions – Wind actions”. European Committee for Standardization.
Boggs, A. W.; Hosoya, N.; Cochran, L. (2000), “Sources of Torsional Wind Loadings on
Tall Buildings: Lesson From the Wind Tunnel”, Advanced Technology in Structural
Engineering, Proceedings of the 2000 Structures Congress and Exposition, SEI/ASCE,
May.
Buchholdt, H. A. (1999), “An introduction to cable roof structure”, second edition, Thomas
Telford.
Chen, B.; Wu Y.; Shen, S. (2006), “Wind-Resistant design of tensile membrane structures”,
Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 23, No. 27, pp. 65-71.
Chen, B.; Wu Y.; Shen, S. (2005), “Wind-induced response analysis of conical membrane
structures”, Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology (New Series), Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 481-
487.
Chen, C-M.; Lu, P.-C.; Tsai, M.-S. (2002), “Acrosswind aerodynamic damping of isolated
square-shaped buildings”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.
90, pp. 1743-1756.
4.4 II. 17
CICIND (1999), “Model code for steel chimneys with commentaries”, International
Committee for Industrial Chimneys, Hemel Hempstead, England, (Amendment A – March
2002).
Davenport, A. G. (1980), “Gust response factors for transmission line loading”,

Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Fort Collins,
Colorado, U.S.A., 1979, Pergamon Press Oxford.
Davenport, A. G. (1967), “Gust Loading Factors”, Journal of the Structural Division

Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 93, ST3, June, pp. 11-34.
Deaves, D. M.; Harris, R. I. (1978), “A mathematical model of the structure of strong

winds”, Report 76, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London,
England.
Guiyuan, X.; Kenqui, X.; Wang, S. (2006), “Internal force analysis of tensile membrane
structures using curved quadrilateral elements”, J. Tsinghu Univ. (Sci. and Tech.), Vol. 46,
No. 3, pp.313-317.
Gu, M; Quan, Y. (2004), “Across-wind loads of typical tall buildings”, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 92, pp. 1147-1165.
Holmes, J. D. (2007), “Wind loading of structures”, Taylor & Francis Group, U. S. A, 2nd
edition.
Huntington, C. G. (2004), “The Tensioned Fabric Roof”, ASCE Press.
ISO 4354:1997(E), “Wind actions on structures”, International Organization for

Standardization, Switzerland.
Kareem, A.; Zhou, Y. (2003), “Gust loading factor-past, present and future”, Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 91, pp. 1301-1328.
Kareem, A. (1985), “Lateral-torsion motion of tall buildings to wind loads”, J. Structural

Eng., ASCE, 111 (11), pp. 2749-2796.
Katagiri, J.; Ohkuma, T.; Marukawa, H. (2002), “Analytical method for coupled across-wind
and torsional wind responses with motion-induced wind forces”, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 90, pp. 1795-1805.
Katsumura, A.; Katagiri, J.; Marukawa, H.; Fujii, K. (2001), “Effects of side ratio on
characteristics of across-wind and torsional responses of high-rise buildings”, Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 89, pp. 1433-1444.
4.4 II. 18
Kijewski, T.; Kareem, A. (1998), “Dynamic wind effects: a comparative study of provisions
in codes and standards with wind tunnel data”, Wind and Structures, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 77-
109.
Kun, K. D.; Kareem, A. (2007) “Gust-front factor: A new framework for the analysis of wind
load effects in gust-fronts”, Proceeding of the 12th International Conference on Wind
Engineering, Cairns, Australia, July, 1-6.
Lewis, W. J. (2003), “Tension structures, Form and behavior”, Thomas Telford.
Madugula, M. S. (2002), “Dynamics Response of Lattice Towers and Guyed Masts”, ASCE,
SEI, Structural Engineering Institute.
McNamara, R. J.; Huang, C. D. (2002), “Wind Torsional Effects on High Rise Buildings”,
McNamara-Salvia, Inc. Boston, MA 02110.
Melbourne, W. H. (1988), “Comfort criteria for wind-induced motion in structures”,

Structural Engineering International, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 40-44.
Novak, M. (1972), “Galloping oscillations of prismatic structures”, J. of the Eng. Mech.

Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, 1972, pp. 27-46.
Novak, M. (1969), “Aeroelastic galloping of prismatic bodies”, J. of the Eng. Mech. Division,
ASCE, Vol. 95, No. EM1, pp. 115-|42.
Rank, E.; Halfmann, A.; Scholz, D.; Breuer, M.; Durst, F.; Kaiser, U.; Bergmann, D.;
Wagner, S. (2003), “Wind loads lightweight structures: Numerical simulation and wind
tunnel tests”, Bauingenieur, Nov.
Shuguo, L.; Shengchun, L.; Li, Q. S.; Zhang, L.; Gu, M. (2002), “Mathematical model of
acrosswind dynamic loads on rectangular tall buildings”, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 90, pp. 1757-1770.
Simiu, E. (1976), “Equivalent Static Wind Loads for Tall Building Design”, Journal of the
Structural Division, Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Vol. 102,
No. ST4, April, pp. 719-737.
Solari, G.; Kareem, A. (1998), “On the formulation of ASCE 7-95 gust effect factor”,
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 77 and 78, pp. 673-684.
Solari, G. (1990), “A Generalized Definition of Gust Factor”, Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics, 36, pp. 539-548.
4.4 II. 19
Solari, G. (1989), “Wind Response Spectrum”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 115,
No. 9, pp. 2057-2073.
Solari, G. (1988), “Equivalent Wind Spectrum Technique: Theory and Applications”,

Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 6, pp. 1303-1323.
Solari, G. (1987), “Turbulence Modeling for Gust Loading”, Journal of Structural

Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 7, pp. 1550-1569.
Solari, G. (1986), “3-D Response of Buildings to Wind Action”, Journal of Wind

Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 23, pp. 379-393.
Solari, G. (1983a), “Gust Buffeting. I: Peak Wind Velocity and Equivalent Pressure”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 365-381.
Solari, G. (1983b), “Gust Buffeting. II: Dynamic Alongwind Response”, Journal of

Structural Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 383-398.
Solari, G. (1983c), “Alongwind Response Estimation: Structural Classification”, Journal of

Structural Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 2, pp.575-581.
Solari, G. (1982), “Alongwind Response Estimation: Closed Form Solution”, Journal of the
Structural Division, Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Vol. 108,
No. ST1, January, pp. 225-244.
Tallin, A.; Ellingwood, B. (1985), “Wind-induced motion of tall buildings”, Engng. Struct.,
Vol. 7, pp. 245-252.
Tamura, Y.; Ohkuma, T.; Okada, H.; Kanda, J. (1999), “Wind loading standards and
design criteria in Japan”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.
83, pp. 555-566.
Tamura, Y.; Kawai, H.; Uematsu, H.; Marukawa, H.; Fujii, K.; Taniike, Y. (1996), “Wind
load and wind-induced response estimations in the Recommendations for Loads on
Buildings”, AIJ 1993, Engineering Structures, Vol. 18, pp. 399-411.
Thepmongkorn, S.; Wood, G. S.; Kwok, K. C. S. (2002), “Interference effects on wind-

induced coupled motion of a tall buildings”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol. 90, pp. 1807-1815.
Vellozzi, J.; Cohen, E. (1968), “Gust Response Factors”, Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 94, June, pp. 1295-1313.
4.4 II. 20
Vickery, B. J.; Basu, R. I. (1983a), “Simplified approaches to the evaluation of the across-
wind response of chimneys”, J. of Wind Eng. and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 14, pp.
153-66.
Vickery, B. J.; Basu, R. I. (1983b), “Across-wind vibrations of structures of circular cross-

section. Part I: Development of a mathematical model for two-dimensional conditions. Part
II: Development of a mathematical model for full-scale application”, J. of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 12, pp. 49-73, 75-97.
Vickery, B. J.; Kao, K. H. (1972), “Drag or along wind response of slender structures”,
Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 98, No. ST1, pp. 21-36.
Vickery, B. J. (1966), “Fluctuating lift and drag on a long cylinder of square cross-section in
a smooth and in a turbulent stream”, J. of Fluid Mech., Vol. 25, Part 3, pp. 481-494.
Wootton, L. R.; Scruton, C. (1970), “Aerodynamic stability”, The Modern Design of Wind
Sensitive Structures, Proceedings of the Seminar held on June 18, 1970, at the Institution
of Civil Engineers, London, England, CIRIA.
Xie, J.; Irwin, P. A. (1998), “Application on the balance technique to building complex”,
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 77-78, pp. 579-590.
Young-Moon, K.; You Ki-Pyo, (2002), “Dynamic response of tapered tall building to wind
loads”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 90, pp. 1771-1782.
Zhou, Y.; Kijewski, T.; Kareem, A. (2002), “Along-Wind load Effects on Tall Buildings:
Comparative Study of Major International Codes and Standards”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 6, pp. 788-796.
Zhou, Y.; Kareem, A. (2002), “Definition of Wind in ASCE 7”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 128, pp. 1082-1086.
Zhou, Y.; Kareem, A. (2001), “Gust Loading Factor: New Model”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 2, February, pp. 168-175.
4.4 II. 21
AIDS OF DESIGN
CONTENT
VOLUME III AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.1 Exposure factor 2

Figure III.2 Correction factor by relative density of air and barometric pressures 3
Figure III.3 Flow diagram to correct the exposure factor by changes in the terrain 4
roughness
Figure III.4 Example of local pressures [Figure 4.3.4(a)] 5
Figure III.5 Example of local pressures [Figure 4.3.4(b)] 5
Figure III.6 Example of local pressures [Figure 4.3.4(c)] 6
APPLICATION EXAMPLE 1. Exposure factor, Frz 7

APPLICATION EXAMPLE 4. Calculation of pressures produced by the wind on 16
industrial premises with gable cover.
APPLICATION EXAMPLE 5. Calculation of pressures produced by wind on 53
industrial premises with cylindrical cover.
APPLICATION EXAMPLE 6. Calculation of pressures produced by wind on a 66
monopole post.
APPLICATION EXAMPLE 7. Calculation of pressures produced by the wind on 79
a telecommunications tower
4. III. 1
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.1 Exposure factor, Frz
4. III. 1
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.2 Correction factor by relative density of air and barometric pressures
4. III. 2
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.3 Flow diagram to correct the exposure factor by changes in the terrain roughness
4. III. 3
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.4 Example of local pressures [Figure 4.3.4(a)]
Figure III.5 Example of local pressures [Figure 4.3.4(b)]
4. III. 4
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.6 Example of local pressures [Figure 4.3.4(c)]
4. III. 5
AIDS OF DESIGN
APPLICATION EXAMPLE 1: Corrected exposure factor, Frzc
I) Problem description
It is desired to determine the corrected exposure factor, Frzc, for heights of 30, 20 and 10
meters, taking into account the terrain roughness variation of the site where it is desired to
found (desplantar) a building of 30 m high. Consider the terrain next to the building is
Category 2 and has a length of 3,000 meters up wind, as well as at the side of this there is
a Category 3 terrain, as shown in Figure III.7.
Figure III.7
II) Procedure for solution
1) Determination of the average distance
Considering that the structure has a height of 30 m, the average distance, Dp, is 1000 m,
according to Table 4.2.2 of Volume of Comments.
2) Calculation of the delay distance, xj
With equation 4.2.7 of point 4.2.3 of Volume of Comments and choosing the roughness
length: z0,r = 0.2 for the Category 3 since is greater than z0,r = 0.02 for the Category 2, it is
obtained the delay distance at the total height of the building:
3) Terrain Categories that participate in the average distance
We have: Lj – xj,3 = 3000 – 473 = 2527 > 1000 m. With this it is shown that the terrain
length that is close to the building, which is Category 2, is greater than the average
distance (the Category 3 terrain does not affect the exposure factor); therefore, the
exposure factor does not have to be corrected and can be solved for terrain with Category
4. III. 6
AIDS OF DESIGN
2 with the equations of point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Recommendations for any height.
Thus:
For z = 10m, Frz = 1.00
For z = 20 m,
For z = 30 m,
It is desired to determine the corrected exposure factor, Frzc, at a height of 20 meters,

taking into account the terrain roughness variation of the site where it is desired to found a
building of 20 m high. Consider that up wind (windward), the terrain Category immediate
to the building is 3, finding later on, terrains with Categories 4 and 2, as shown in Figure
III.8.
Figure III.8
II) Procedure for solution
1) Determination of the average distance
Considering that the structure has a height of 20 m, the average distance is 1000 m,
according to Table 4.2.2 of the Volume of Comments.
2) Calculation of the delay distances, xj
4. III. 7
AIDS OF DESIGN
According to the equation 4.2.7 of point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Comments, the delay
distances, xj, will be calculated for the terrains of different Category and it will be verified if
one or more Categories of terrain have influence on the average distance.
The delay distance between the terrains with Categories 3 and 4, is calculated with z0,r =
2.0 for Category 4 (terrain “k” in Figure III.8), as follows:
The delay distance between the terrains with Category 2 and 4 is calculated with z0.r = 2.0,
for Category 4; therefore, the delay distance is equal to the previous equation.
For the terrain “j” with Category 3, there is a new distance:
Therefore, the terrain “k” with Category 4 takes part in the average distance with:
Then the exposure factor will be determined according with point 4.2.3 of the Volume of
Comments since the terrains “j” and “k” have influence on the calculation of the exposure
factor; the terrain “m” does not take part in the average distance.
NOTE: If the terrain “k” were Category 3, then the exposure factor would not suffer any modification and would
be calculated as indicated in point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Recommendations for any height of the
construction and there would be, for z = 20m:
This value is shown only for comparison purposes.
According to point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Recommendations we have:
For terrain “j”, Category 3, z = 20 m:
4. III. 8
AIDS OF DESIGN
For terrain “k”, Category 4, z = 20 m:
Applying the equation 4.2.8 of point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Comment we have the
corrected exposure factor:
In this case there is a reduction of 4% in the exposure factor but for greater heights the
difference could be more important.
It is desired to calculate the corrected exposure factor, Frzc, for heights 60, 40 and 20
meters, taking into account the terrain roughness variation of the site where it is desired to
found a building of 100 meters high. Consider that up wind the Category of the terrain
immediate to the building is 4, later on, found terrains with Category 2 and 3, as shown in
Figure III.9.
Figure III.9
II) Solution procedure
Considering that the structure has a height of 100m, the average distance, Dp is equal to
2000 m, according to Table 4.2.2 of the Volume of Comments.
For hj = z =60 m
4. III. 9
AIDS OF DESIGN
1) Calculation of delay distances, xj
Delay distances will be calculated, xj, for each different terrain Category as specified in
point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Comments, and will be verified if one or more terrain
Categories have influence on the average distance, taking into account the transition
among terrains “j”, “k”, and “m” (see Figure 9).
The delay distances between terrains “j” and “k” (see Figure III.9), is calculated with z0,r =
2.0 (between tC4 and tC2), therefore:
z0,r = 0.2 for evaluating the delay distance between terrains “k” and “m” (between tC2 and
tC3 see Figure III.), so that:
For terrain “j”, Category 4, there is a new length with Category 4:
and a length with Category 2:
For terrain “k”, Category 2, there is anew length with Category 2:
The remaining length of terrain “k” for covering the average distance will be terrain with
Category 3:
Therefore in short we have:
xt4 = 368 m
4. III. 10
AIDS OF DESIGN
xt2 = 632 + 375 = 1007 m
xt3 = 625 m
The calculation is made as stated in point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Comments.
According to point 4.2.3 the Volume of Comments:
for terrain “j”, Category 4 at height z = 60 m:
for terrain “k”, Category 2 at height z = 60 m:
for terrain “m”, Category 3 at height z = 60 m:
According with point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Comments, the exposure factor is:
In order to obtain the exposure factor at 40 m high, a procedure similar to the previous is
carried out.
For hj = z = 40 m
1) Calculation of xj
The delay distances, xj, will be calculated for each different terrain Category as established
in point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Comments, and it will be verified if one or more terrain
Categories have influence on the average distance, having into account the transition
among terrains “j”, “k” and “m” (see Figure III.9).
z0,r = 2.0 for evaluating the delay distance between terrains “j” and “k” (between tC4 and tC2),
therefore:
4. III. 11
AIDS OF DESIGN
z0,r = 0.2 for evaluating the delay distance between terrains “k” and “m” (between tC2 and
tC3), therefore:
2) Terrain Categories participating in the average distance:
For terrain “j”, Category 4, we have:
getting a length of terrain with Category 2:
For terrain “k”, Category 2, we have:
xt2 = 1500 – 678 = 822 m
the remaining length of terrain “k” to cover the average distance, Dp, would be a terrain
with Category 3:
xt3 = 2000 -1000 - 1500 + 678 = 178 m
xt4 = 619 m
xt2 = 381 + 822 = 1203 m
xt3 = 178 m
According with point 4.2.3 of Volume of Recommendations we have:
for terrain “j”, Category 4 at height z = 40 m:
4. III. 12
AIDS OF DESIGN
for terrain “k”, Category 2 at height z = 40 m:
for terrain “m”, Category 3 at height z = 40 m:
Applying the equation of the exposure factor of point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Comments,
we have:
For hj = z = 20 m
1) Calculation of xj
The delay distances, xj, will be calculated for each different terrain Category as established
in point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Comments and will be verified if one or more terrain
Categories have influence on the average distance, taking into account the transition
among terrains “j”, “k” and “m” (see Figure III.9).
If zo,r = 2.0 for evaluating the delay distance between terrains “j” and “k” (between tC4 and
tC2), we have:
z0,r =0.2 for evaluating the delay distance between the terrains “k” and “m” (between tC2
and tC3); therefore:
2) Terrain Categories that take part in the average distance:
For terrain “j”, Category 4:
4. III. 13
AIDS OF DESIGN
xt4 = Lj – xj,2 = 1000 – 160 = 840 m
getting a length of terrain with Category 2:
xt2 = 160 m
For the terrain “k”, Category 2, we have:
xt2 = Lk – xj,3 = 1500 – 285 = 1215 m
The remaining length of the terrain “k” to cover the average distance, Dp, would be terrain
with Category 3:
xt3 = 2000 – 1000 – 1500 + 285 = - 215 m
xt4 = 840 m
xt2 = 160 + 1215 = 1375 m
xt3 = -215 m
As the average distance did not encompass terrain with Category 3, will not be taken into
account for the calculation, and for terrain with Category 2 it will be taken into account the
length:
xt2 = 2000 – 840 = 1160 m
Using the equations of point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Recommendations, for terrain “j”,
Category 4 at the height z = 20 m:
For the terrain “k”, Category 2 at the height z = 20 m:
Applying the exposure factor equation of point 4.2.3 of the Volume of Comments, we
have:
4. III. 14
AIDS OF DESIGN
APPLICATION EXAMPLE 4: Calculation of pressures produced by wind on industrial

premises with gable cover
It is desirable to obtain the pressures the wind produces on industrial premises with gable
cover. The structure is located on a suburban type terrain, surrounded mainly by low
height houses and wooded zones, close to the city of San Luis Potosí, S. L. P. In Figure
III.10 is shown its geometry and dimensions.
The structural system elements and tributary areas are the following:
Main structure
The main structure has 11 steel frames placed each 8 m at the longitudinal direction
(Figure III.10). In the direction perpendicular to the ridgepole such frames are linked by
wind bracings on the walls C and D and cover of the bays included between the axes 2-3
and 9-10. Also, the structure has struts in each column unloading which go from axis 1 to
3 and from axis 9 to 11 (Figure III.10 and Figure III.11). The tributary areas for the main
structure elements are shown in Figure III.12.
Secondary elements
The secondary elements of the structural system are the cover joists and the stringers of
the walls (Figure III.10). The tributary area of the joists is 12.1 m2, of the stringers of
longitudinal walls (C and D) is 16 m2 and transversal walls (A and B) is 16 m2.
Coatings
The structure skeleton is covered by sheet panels of 3.05 x 0.61 m in a way that the
tributary area corresponding to each panel is 1.86 m2.
Anchorages
The coating sheet is fastened to the structure by means of anchorages placed each 0.305
m, so that the tributary area of these anchorages is of 0.305 x 1.51 = 0.46 m2 for the roof
and 0.305 x 2.00 = 0.61 m2 for the walls.
4. III. 15
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.10 Geometry and dimensions of the industrial premises structural system
4. III. 16
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.11 Axes of the main structural system
4. III. 17
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.12 Tributary areas for the main structural system
4. III. 18
AIDS OF DESIGN
Following, the mentioned points refer to Volume I of Recommendations, unless the

contrary is indicated.
1) Structure classification
According to its importance, the structure belongs to Group B (Point 4.1.3).
2) Determination of the design basic speed
The design basic speed depends on several parameters (Point 4.2); these are calculated
as indicated next.
2.1) Terrain Category
According to the data, the terrain is classified within the Category 3 (see Table 4.2.1). It is
assumed that the terrain roughness of the surroundings is uniform farther than the lengths
established in such Table; therefore, it is not necessary to consider gradual changes
regarding this characteristic.
2.2) Regional speed
According to point 4.2.2, in a return period of 50 years (for structures pertaining to Group
B), the regional speed corresponding to the foundation site is (see Appendix C, Table
C.1):
VR = 140 km/h
2.3) Exposure factor, Frz
The exposure factor, Frz, is constant since the height of the industrial premises is small
than 10 meters (point 4.2.3). Therefore, this factor has the value of:
Frz = c = 0.881
2.4) Topography factor
Inasmuch as the industrial premises will be founded on a flat terrain, the local topography
is (point 4.2.4) FT = 1.0.
2.5) Design basic speed
Finally, the design basic speed is (point 4.2):
4. III. 19
AIDS OF DESIGN
VD = 1.0(0.881)(140) = 123.3 km/h
3) Base dynamic pressure
The height above the sea level of the site is 1,877 m and its annual mean temperature is
17.6°C (see Appendix C). The barometric pressure for this height is 608.6 mm Hg (Table
4.2.5). Therefore, the G factor has a value of:
So that, the base dynamic pressure (point 4.2.5) has a vale of:
qz = 0.047(0.82)(123.3)2 = 585.9 Pa (59.8 kg/m2)
4) Selection of the analysis procedure of loads
According with Figure 4.3.2, the reference height is = 7.5 m, then, the slenderness ratio
(λ = height/width) is 7.5/60 = 0.125 < 5. The calculation of the fundamental period is not
necessary since conditions a) to e) of point 4.3.1 are satisfied. Therefore, the structure is
Type 1, according to is response before the wind action (point 4.1.4), with regard to the
analysis procedure this will be made following the static analysis (point 4.3.1).
5) Design pressures
5.1) Design internal pressures
The design internal pressures obtained here, will be applicable in the main structure
design and secondary elements.
Assuming that the door of wall A [Figure III.10 and Figure III.12(a)] is open, the following
cases are given:
A) Wind normal to the generatrices (along the 60 m)
According to Table 4.3.7(b) (case c) of point 4.3.2.1.2, the internal pressure coefficient, Cpi,
is equal to the value of Cpe for side walls since the ratio between the open area of the side
wall (12 x 4 = 48 m2) and the total open area of the other walls and cover (= 0 m2) is
greater than 6; that is to say, Cpi = Cpe = -0.2 (Table 4.3.2, point 4.3.2.1.1), since the door
is open at a distance of the windward edge of 24 m, which results greater than 3 = 3 x
7.5 = 22.5 m. Then, when the wind is normal to the generatrices, the design internal
pressure is (point 4.3.2.1.2):
4. III. 20
AIDS OF DESIGN
pi = -0.2(585.9) = - 117.2 Pa (-12.0 kg/m2)
B) Wind parallel to the generatrices (along the 80 m)
Provided that the ratio between the windward open area (12 x 4 = 48 m2) and the total
open area of the other walls and cover (= 0 m2) is greater than 6, we have Cpi = 0.8 (case
a, Table 4.3.77(b) and Table 4.3.1). Thus, when the wind is parallel to the generatrices,
the design internal pressure is:
pi = 0.8(585.9) = 468.7 Pa (47.8 kg/m2)
5.2) Design pressures for the main structure
For determining the design pressures of the main structure, the local pressure factor, KL,
will be equal to one (point 4.3.2.1.1).
1. Windward wall (wall C)
For θ = 0°C, Cpe = 0.8 (Table 4.3.1), and KA = 1.0 (because of it is not side wall).
Therefore, the design pressure is (points 4.3.2.1, 4.3.2.1.1 and 4.3.2.1.2):
pz = pe – pi = 0.8(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 585.9 Pa (59.8 kg/m2)
2. Leeward wall (wall D)
For θ = 0°, d/b = 60 / 80 = 0.75 ≤ 1 and γ = 5.71° < 10° is obtained from Table 4.3.1 that
Cpe = -0.5; given that this wall is not side wall, KA = 1.0. Then, the design pressure is:
pz = pe – pi = -0.5(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -175.8 Pa (-17.9 kg/m2)
3. Side walls
Wall A
According to Table 4.3.2, for = 7.5 m, the external pressure coefficients at the direction
of the 60 m, are:
Cpe = -0.65 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.50 (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.30 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
4. III. 21
AIDS OF DESIGN
= -0.20 (22.5 – 60.0 m)
The reduction factors by area size, KA, are obtained by means of interpolation of the
values of Table 4.3.4 for the tributary areas shown in Figure III.12(a). With the previous
the design pressure are (KL = 1.0 for all axes).
Wall B
Given the structure symmetry for this wind direction, the pressures on wall B are equal to
those of the wall A, except in the zones corresponding to the door due to de differences in
the tributary areas [Figure III.12(b)]. So, the design pressures for this wall B are (with KL =
1.0) for all axes):
4. III. 22
AIDS OF DESIGN
4. Cover
From Table 4.3.3(b), for γ = 5.71°<10°, windward and leeward covers and /b = 7.5 / 60 =
0.123 ≤ 0.5, the external pressure coefficients, Cpe, are:
Cpe = -0.9, -0.4 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.50, 0.0 (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.30, 0.1 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
= -0.2, 0.2 (22.5 – 60.0 m)
Factors KA are equal to 0.8 (according to Table 4.3.4) since the corresponding tributary
areas are greater than 100 m2; 241.2 m2 for intermediate frames (axes 2-2 to 10-10) and
120.6 m2 for extreme frames (axes 1 – 1 and 11 – 11), as shown in Figure III.12(c).
When using these values, according the points 4.3.2.1, 4.3.2.1.1 and 4.3.2.1.2, the design
pressures for the cover, along the 60 m, are:
For 0.0 – 7.5 m:
pz = -0.9(0.8)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -304.6 Pa (-31 kg/m2); or
pz = -0.4(0.8)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -70.3 Pa (-7.1 kg/m2)
4. III. 23
AIDS OF DESIGN
For 7.5 – 15.0 m:
pz = -0.5(0.8)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -117.2 Pa (-11.9 kg/m2); or
pz = 0.0(0.8)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 117.2 Pa (12.0 kg/m2)
For 15.0 – 22.5:
pz = -0.3(0.8)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -23.4 Pa (-2.4 kg/m2); or
pz = 0.1(0.8)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 164.1 Pa (16.8 kg/m2)
For 22.5 – 60.0 m:
pz = -0.3(0.8)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 2.4 Pa (2.4 kg/m2); or
pz = -0.4(0.8)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 210.9 Pa (21.6 kg/m2)
Due to in this case there are two external pressure coefficients for each one of the
horizontal distances from the windward wall, the designer will have to verify which
combination of pressures is the most unfavorable for the design of the main structure
cover before the wind action at the direction normal to the generatrices.
In Figures III.13(a) and III.13(b) are shown the design pressures for the main structure
when the wind acts on the direction normal to the generatrices.
4. III. 24
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.13(a) Design pressures for the main system, when the wind is normal to the generatrices
4. III. 25
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.13(b)
a. Windward wall (wall A)
For this wall and if θ = 90°, from Table 4.3.1 we have that Cpe = 0.8, and KA = 1.0 because
of it is not side wall. From this way, it is obtained:
pz = pe – pi = 0.8(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = 0.0 Pa (0.0 kg/m2)
b. Leeward wall (wall B)
For θ = 0°, d/b = 80/60 = 1.33 > 1 and γ = 5.71° < 10°, the value of Cpe is equal to -0.433
(see Table 4.3.1), while KA = 1.0, because of it is not a side wall. From this, the design
pressure is:
pz = pe – pi = 0.433(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -722.4 Pa (-73.7 kg/m2)
c. Side walls (walls C and D)
From Table 4.3.2, for = 7.5 m, the external pressure coefficients, along the 80 m, are:
Cpe = -0.65 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.50 (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.30 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
4. III. 26
AIDS OF DESIGN
= -0.20 (22.5 – 80.0 m)
Also, the factors KA are 0.907 for a tributary area of 24 m2 and 0.869 for a tributary area of
48 m2 [Figure III.12(c)], according to Table 4.3.4 and KL = 1.0 for all axes.
With the previous data, the design pressures are:
d. Cover
According to Table 4.3.3(b), for γ = 5.71° < 10°, windward and leeward covers and /d =
7.5/80 = 0.094 ≤ 0.5, the external pressure coefficients, Cpe, are:
Cpe = -0.9, -0.4 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.50, 0.0 (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.30, 0.1 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
= -0.2, 0.2 (22.5 – 80.0 m)
The factors KA are equal to 0.8 (according to Table 4.3.4) since the corresponding tributary
areas are greater than 100 m2; 241.2 m2 for intermediate frames (axes 2-2 to 10-10) and
120.6 m2 for extreme frames (axes 1-1 and 11-11) as shown in Figure III.12(c).
With the previous values and with KL = 1.0 for all axes, the design pressures for the cover,
along the 80 m, are:
4. III. 27
AIDS OF DESIGN
Ac can be observed in the previous table there are two combinations for each one of the
axes; therefore, the designer will have to verify which of them is the most unfavorable for
the design of the cover of the main structure before the wind action in the direction parallel
to the generatrices.
The design pressures for the main structure when the wind acts on the direction parallel to
the generatrices are shown in Figures III.14(a) and III.14(b).
NOTE: The cover pressures associated to wind parallel to the generatrices are transferred to the frames
through the joists; therefore, the wind bracings will only resist the side pressures.
4. III. 28
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.14(a) Design pressures for main system, when the wind is parallel to the generatrices
4. III. 29
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.14(b)
5.3) Calculation of the design pressures for the secondary elements of the structure
Due to the secondary elements of the construction are those on which the panels will be
fixed (coatings), it is necessary to take into account the effect of local pressures as
established in point 4.3.2.1.1. From Figure 4.3.4(a) ( ≤ 25 m), for this wind direction, we
have:
1. Stringer of the windward wall (wall C)
According to Table 4.3.5 (wall MBA1), the local pressure factor, KL, is equal to 1.25; from
Table 4.3.1, Cpe = 0.8; KA = 1.0, because of it is not a side wall. Then the local pressure is:
pzl = 0.8(1.0)(1.25)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 703.1 Pa (71.8 kg/m2)
However, the tributary area of the stringers of this wall is 16 m2 > 0.25(7.5 m)2 = 14.06 m2
(Table 4.3.5), then the previous pressure is only applicable on an area of 14.06 m2. For
4. III. 30
AIDS OF DESIGN
the rest tributary area of these stringers it is taken KL = 1.0 (point 4.3.2.1.1). Thus, the
local design pressure for this remaining area is:
pzl = 0.8(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 585.9 Pa (59.8 kg/m2)
In Figure III.15 these pressures are shown for the stringers of wall C when the wind is
normal to the generatrices. It is important to point out that the affectation area (14.06 m2)
is placed at the center assuming that this is the most unfavorable condition. Nevertheless,
the designer shall foresee other conditions for being able to establish which of them is the
most critical.
Figure III.15 Pressures for stringers of the wall C. Wind normal to generatrices
The other condition established in point 4.3.2.1.1 is KL = 1.0 for all the tributary area.
Thus, the design pressure for this condition would be:
pzl = 0.8(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 585.9 Pa (59.8 kg/m2)
This is less unfavorable than the previous condition.
2. Stringer of the leeward wall (wall D)
In the case of stringers of this wall we have the following: Cpe = -0.5 (according to Table
4.3.1, with θ = 0°, d/b = 60/80 = 0.75 ≤ 1 and γ = 5.71° < 10°); also KA = 1.0 for not being
side wall and KL = 1.0, because it is not required in Table 4.3.5. Thus, the local design
pressure for these stringers is:
pzl = -0.5(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -175.8 Pa (-17.9 kg/m2)
4. III. 31
AIDS OF DESIGN
Because of, there are not restrictions regarding the affectation area this local pressure
shall be applied on all the tributary area corresponding to these stringers.
3. Stringers of side walls (walls A and B)
For calculating the design local pressures of these elements, it is obtained from Table
4.3.2 (with = 7.5 m):
Cpe = -0.65 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.50 (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.30 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
= -0.20 (22.5 – 60.0 m)
According to Table 4.3.4, for a tributary area of the stringers equal to 12 m2, we have that
KA = 0.99.
According to point 4.3.2.1.1 and Table 4.3.5, the local pressure factor, KL, has the value of
1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 depending on its distance to the windward edge.
With the previous values, we have the following cases for the stringers that go from axis a
to axis B.
When KL = 1.0, the design local pressure is:
pzl = -0.65(0.99)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -259.8 Pa (-26.5 kg/m2) (0.00 – 6.00 m)
pzl = -0.65(0.99)(1.5)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -448.3 Pa (-45.7 kg/m2) (0.00 – 6.00 m)
pzl = -0.65(0.99)(2.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -636.9 Pa (-65.0 kg/m2) (0.00 – 3.75 m)
pzl = -0.65(0.99)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -259.8 Pa (-26.5 kg/m2) (0.00 – 6.00 m)
In Figure III.16 are shown the three alternative cases of the previous design local
pressures for stringers going from axis A to axis B. Among these cases the designer shall
select the most critical.
4. III. 32
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.16
In a similar way, there are the following cases for stringers that go from axis B to axis C:
When KL = 1.5, the design pressure is:
pzl = -0.65(0.99)(1.5)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -448.3 Pa (-45.7 kg/m2) (0.00 – 1.50 m)
pzl = -0.50(0.99)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -172.8 Pa (-17.6 kg/m2) (1.50 – 6.00 m)
pzl = -0.65(0.99)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -259.8.3 Pa (-26.5 kg/m2) (0.00 – 1.50 m)
pzl = -0.50(0.99)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -172.8 Pa (-17.6 kg/m2) (1.50 – 6.00 m)
4. III. 33
AIDS OF DESIGN
For stringers located between the rest axes of the walls A and B, the local pressure factors
will have a value of 1.0, while, the external pressure factors will vary as their location
regarding the windward wall (wall C in this case). Thus, the design local pressures for
these stringers will be:
Stringers from axis C to axis D:
pzl = -0.50(0.99)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -172.8 Pa (-17.6 kg/m2) (0.00 – 3.00 m)
pzl = -0.30(0.99)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -56.8 Pa (-5.8 kg/m2) (3.00 – 6.00 m)
Stringers from axis D to axis E:
pzl = -0.30(0.99)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -56.8 Pa (-5.8 kg/m2) (0.00 – 4.50 m)
pzl = -0.20(0.99)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 1.2 Pa (0.2 kg/m2) (4.50 – 6.00 m)
Stringers from axis E to axis F up to stringers from axis J to axis K:
pzl = -0.20(0.99)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 1.2 Pa (0.2 kg/m2) (0.00 – 6.00 m)
4. Cover joists
For /b = 7.5/60 = 0.125 ≤ 0.5 and γ = 5.71° < 10°, windward and leeward covers, the
external pressure coefficients, Cpe, are [Table 4.3.3(b)]:
Cpe = -0.9, - 0.4 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.50, 0.0 (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.30, 0.1 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
= -0.2, 0.2 (22.5 – 60.0 m)
For a tributary area of the joists equal to 12.1 m2, KL = 0.985 (Table 4.3.4).
According with Table 4.3.5 and with point 4.3.2.1.1, the local pressure factor KL, has a
vale of 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 depending on its distance to the windward edge or to the ridgepole
axis. Thus, the design local pressures for the cover joists will be:
4. III. 34
AIDS OF DESIGN
NOTE: The boldface values are the most unfavorable (in absolute value) for the corresponding location
regarding the wall C.
In short, in Figure III.17 are shown the design local pressures for the joists of the cover
when the wind direction is normal to the generatrices. It is important to indicate that these
pressures were selected assuming that they are those that give the most unfavorable
condition.
4. III. 35
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.17 Design local pressures for secondary elements of the cover, when the wind is normal to
the generatrices
4. III. 36
AIDS OF DESIGN
For this wind direction we have [Figure 4.3.4(b), ≤ 25 m]:
1. Stringers of windward wall (wall A)
According to Table 4.3.5 (wall MBA1), the factor KL, has the value of 1.25; from Table
4.3.1, Cpe = 0.8; KA = 1.0 because of it is not a side wall. Then, the design local pressure
is:
pzl = 0.8(1.0)(1.25)(585.9) – (468.7) = 117.2 Pa (12.0 kg/m2)
The tributary area of the stringers of this wall is 12 m2 ≤ 0.25(7.5 m)2 = 14.06 m2 (Table
4.3.5); therefore, the previous pressure is applicable in the whole tributary area.
Other condition established in point 4.3.2.1.1 is that KL = 1.0 for the whole tributary area.
Then, the design pressure for this condition would be:
pzl = 0.8(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = 0.0 Pa (0.0 kg/m2)
This is less unfavorable than the previous condition.
In Figure III.18 are shown the design local pressures for the stringers of wall A when the
wind is parallel to the generatrices.
Figure III.18
4. III. 37
AIDS OF DESIGN
2. Stringers of leeward wall (wall B)
In the case of the stringers of this wall we have: Cpe = -0.433 (according to Table 4.3.1,
with θ = 90°, d/b = 80/60 = 1.33 > 1 and γ = 5.71°); also KA = 1.0 because of it is not side
wall and KL = 1.0 because of it is not required in Table 4.3.5. Thus, the design local
pressure for these stringers is:
pzl = -0.433(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -722.4 Pa (-73.7 kg/m2)
Due to there are not restrictions regarding the affectation area, this local pressure shall be
applied in the whole tributary area corresponding to these stringers.
3. Stringers of side walls (walls C and D)
For calculating the design local pressures of these elements it is obtained from Table 4.3.2
(with = 7.5 m):
Cpe = -0.65 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.50 (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.30 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
= -0.2 (22.5 – 60.0 m)
For a tributary area of the stringers equal to 16 m2 and according to Table 4.3.4, we have
that KA = 0.96.
According with point 4.3.2.1.1 and Table 4.3.5, the local pressure factor, KL, has the value
of 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 depending on its distances to the windward edge.
With the previous values, there are the following cases for the stringers that go from axis 1
to axis 2.
pzl = -0.65(0.96)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -834.3 Pa (-85.1 kg/m2) (0.00 – 7.50 m)
pzl = -0.50(0.96)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -749.9 Pa (-76.5 kg/m2) (7.50 – 8.00 m)
pzl = -0.65(0.96)(1.5)(585.9) – (468.7) = -1017.1 Pa (-103.8 kg/m2) (0.00 – 7.50 m)
4. III. 38
AIDS OF DESIGN
pzl = -0.50(0.96)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -749.9 Pa (-76.5 kg/m2) (7.50 – 8.00 m)
pzl = -0.65(0.96)(2.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -1199.9 Pa (-122.4 kg/m2) (0.00 – 3.75 m)
pzl = -0.65(0.96)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -834.3 Pa (-85.1 kg/m2) (3.75 – 7.50 m)
pzl = -0.50(0.96)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -749.9 Pa (-76.5 kg/m2) (7.50 – 8.00 m)
In Figure III.19 are shown the three alternative cases of the previous design local
pressures for stringers that go from axis 1 to axis 2. The designer shall choose the most
critical condition.
Figure III.19
For the stringers located between the rest axes of the walls C and D, the local pressure
factors will have the value of 1.0; meanwhile, the external pressure factors will vary
according to their location regarding the windward wall (wall A in this case). Thus, the
design local pressures for these stringers will be:
4. III. 39
AIDS OF DESIGN
Stringers from axis 2 to axis 3:
pzl = -0.50(0.96)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -749.9 Pa (-76.5 kg/m2) (0.00 – 7.00 m)
pzl = -0.30(0.96)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -637.4 Pa (-65.0 kg/m2) (7.00 – 8.00 m)
pzl = -0.30(0.96)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -637.4 Pa (-65.0 kg/m2) (0.00 – 6.50 m)
pzl = -0.20(0.96)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -581.2 Pa (-59.3 kg/m2) (6.50 – 8.00 m)
pzl = -0.20(0.96)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -581.2 Pa (-59.3 kg/m2) (0.00 – 8.00 m)
4. Joists of cover
For = 7.5/80 = 0.094 ≤ 0.5 and γ = 5.71° < 10°, the external pressure coefficients, Cpe,
are [Table 4.3.3(b)]:
Cpe = -0.9, -0.4 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.5, 0.0 (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.3, 0.1 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
= -0.2, 0.2 (22.5 – 80.0 m)
Given that the tributary area of these joists is 12.1 m2, KA = 0.986 (Table 4.3.4). Therefore,
with these values and considering that the local pressure factor, KL, has a value of 1.0, 1.5
or 2.0, depending on its distance to the windward edge (point 4.3.2.1.1 and Table 4.3.5),
we have the following design local pressures:
4. III. 40
AIDS OF DESIGN
For joists located between the rest axes of walls C and D, the local pressure factors will
have a value of 1.0; meanwhile, the external pressure factors will vary according to their
location regarding the windward wall (wall A in this case). Thus, the design local
pressures for these joists will be:
4. III. 41
AIDS OF DESIGN
In Figure III.20 are shown the design local pressure for the joists of the cover when the
wind direction is parallel to the generatrices. These pressures are shown assuming that
the boldface values in the previous four tables are those that present the most unfavorable
conditions.
5.4) Calculation of the design pressures for the structure coatings
Considering that it is not dangerous the loosening of the coatings, these will be designed
as if dealing with a structure pertaining to Group B (point 4.1.3) in a way that the base
dynamic pressure will be the same than for the main structure. Thus, this pressure will
have a value of 585.9 Pa (59.8 kg/m2) and the design internal pressures will be: -117.2 Pa
(-12.0 kg/m2) and 468.7 Pa (47.8 kg/m2) when the wind is normal and parallel to the
generatrices, respectively.
In turn, the reduction factor KA has a value of 1.0 due to the tributary area of each one of
the coatings is 1.86 m2 ≤ 10 m2.
It is important to indicate that even though when here are present the acting pressures on
the coatings corresponding to some of the cases of Table 4.3.5, these are not applied
simultaneously for the design; therefore, the most unfavorable conditions shall be verified
according with the size and position of the coatings.
For this direction a0 = = 7.5 m, 0.5a0 = 3.75 m, a02 = 56.25 m2 and 0.25a02 = 14.06 m2.
4. III. 42
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.20 Design local pressures for secondary elements of the cover, when the wind is parallel to
the generatrices
4. III. 43
AIDS OF DESIGN
1. Coatings of the windward wall (wall C)
According to Table 4.3.1 the external pressure coefficient has a value of 0.8 and with
Table 4.3.5 and point 4.3.2.1.1 the factor KL is equal to 1.25 or 1.00. Therefore, the
design local pressure for coatings of wall C, when the wind is normal to the generatrices,
is:
pzl = 0.8(1.0)(1.25)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 703.1 Pa (71.8 kg/m2); or
pzl = 0.8(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = 585.9 Pa (59.8 kg/m2)
Therefore, the most unfavorable condition is the first one of these two last pressures.
2. Coatings of the leeward wall (wall D)
For the coatings of this wall we have that Cpe = -0.05 (Table 4.3.1) and KL = 1.0 because of
it is not required in Table 4.3.5. Thus:
pzl = -0.5(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (-117.2) = -175.8 Pa (-17.9 kg/m2)
3. Coatings of the side walls (walls A and B)
For calculating the design local pressures of these coatings, from Table 4.3.2 (with = 7.5
m) the external pressure coefficients are obtained:
Cpe = -0.65 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.50 (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.30 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
= -0.20 (22.5 – 60.0 m)
With these values and according with point 4.3.2.1.1 and Table 4.3.5, the design local
pressures of coatings of the walls A and B, when the wind is normal to the generatrices
are:
4. III. 44
AIDS OF DESIGN
NOTE: Boldface values are the most unfavorable for the location of coatings regarding the wall C.
4. Coatings of the cover
In this case the external pressure coefficients are:
Cpe = -0.9, -0.4 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.50, 0.0 (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.30, 0.1 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
= -0.2, 0.2 (22.5 – 60.0 m)
According to point 4.3.2.1.1 and Table 4.3.5, the local pressure coefficients have a value
of 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 depending on their distance to the windward edge and to the ridgepole.
Thus, the design local pressures for coatings of the cover, when the wind is normal to the
generatrices, are:
4. III. 45
AIDS OF DESIGN
NOTE: Boldface values are the most unfavorable (in absolute value) for the location regarding the wall C.
The distribution of these pressures is shown in Figure III.21. These pressures shall be
applied on the whole tributary area of the coatings.
For this direction also we have that: a0 = = 7.5 m, 0.5a0 = 3.75 m, a02 = 56.25 m2 and
0.25a02 = 14.06 m2.
1. Coatings of the windward wall (wall A)
According to Table 4.3.1, the external pressure coefficient has a value of 0.8, and with
Table 4.3.5 and point 4.3.2.1.1 the factor KL is equal to 1.25 or 1.00. Therefore, the
design local pressure for coatings of the wall A, when the wind is parallel to the
generatrices is:
4. III. 46
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.21 Design local pressures for coatings of the cover, when the wind is normal to the
generatrices
pzl = 0.8(1.0)(1.25)(585.9) – (468.7) = 117.2 Pa (12.0 kg/m2); or
pzl = 0.8(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = 0.0 Pa (0.0 kg/m2)
Obviously, the most unfavorable condition is the firs of these two last pressures.
4. III. 47
AIDS OF DESIGN
2. Coatings of the leeward (wall B)
For the coatings of this wall we have Cpe = -0.433 (Table 4.3.1) and KLll = 1.0 due to is not
required in Table 4.3.5. Thus:
pzl = -0.433(1.0)(1.0)(585.9) – (468.7) = -722.4 Pa (-73.7 kg/m2)
3. Coatings of the side walls (walls C and D)
In order to calculate the design local pressures of these coatings, from Table 4.3.2 (with
= 7.5 m) it is obtained:
Cpe = -0.65 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.50, (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.30 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
= -0.20 (22.5 – 80.0 m)
With these values and according with point 4.3.2.1.1 and the Table 4.3.5, the design local
pressures of the coatings of walls A and B, when the wind is parallel to the generatrices,
are:
regarding to wall A.
4. Coatings of the cover
In this case the external pressure coefficients are:
4. III. 48
AIDS OF DESIGN
Cpe = -0.9, -0.4 (0.0 – 7.5 m)
= -0.50, 0.0 (7.5 – 15.0 m)
= -0.30, 0.1 (15.0 – 22.5 m)
= -0.2, 0.2 (22.5 – 60.0 m)
According to point4.3.2.1.1 and Table 4.3.5, the local pressure coefficients have the value
of 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 depending on its distance to the windward edge. Thus, the design local
pressures for the cover coatings, when the wind is normal to the generatrices, are:
regarding to wall A.
The distribution of these pressures that shall be applied on the whole tributary area of the
coatings is shown in Figure III.22.
4. III. 49
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.22 Design local pressures for cover coatings when the wind is parallel to the generatrices.
4. III. 50
AIDS OF DESIGN
5.5) Calculations of design pressures for anchorages of the structure coatings
Due to the tributary areas of anchorages are also smaller than 10 m2 and 0.25a0 = 14.06
m2, the reduction coefficients by tributary area, KA, and local pressure, KL, are equal to
those used for coatings. Therefore, the design local pressures for these anchorages are
equal to those corresponding pressures of coatings; however, shall be applied on the
corresponding anchorage tributary area.
5.6) Comments
It is important to indicate that in this example there were calculated the design pressures
when wind attacks perpendicular and parallel to the generatrices of the industrial premises,
independently each other. Nevertheless, for these directions was only studied one
direction, therefore, the designer shall foresee if it is necessary or not to calculate the
pressures corresponding to other direction. Additionally, shall be considered the case in
which the door of the premises is closed.
The previous shall be carried out in order to select, among the mentioned situations, the
most unfavorable load condition and thus properly design each structural element.
4. III. 51
AIDS OF DESIGN
APPLICATION EXAMPLE 5: Calculation of pressures produced by wing on industrial

premises with cylindrical cover.
It is desired to determine the design pressures produced by the wind on industrial

premises with cylindrical cover located at the north of the state of Campeche. The
industrial premises are located on an agricultural field without important obstructions on its
surroundings. Its geometry and dimensions are shown in Figure III.23. The structure
coatings are sheet panels of 1.52 x 0.61 m, therefore their tributary area is 0.93 m2.
Figure III.23 Geometry and dimensions of the industrial premises
I) Solution procedure
Unless the contrary is indicated, the mentioned points correspond to Volume I of

Recommendations.
Due to its importance (point 4.1.3), the structure belongs to Group B.
2) Design speed determination
The design speed is determined based on point 4.2. Given that this speed depends on
several parameters, these will be calculated as indicated next.
2.1) Terrain category
4. III. 52
AIDS OF DESIGN
According with the mentioned terrain characteristics, this is classified within the Category 2
(Table 4.2.1, point 4.2). It is assumed that the terrain roughness of the surroundings is
uniform further than the minimum lengths established in the same table.
2.2) Regional speed
Considering the region, where the industrial premises will be founded, that this pertains to
Group B, it is obtained from the map of isotachs, for a return period of 50 years:
VR = 135 km/h
2.3) Exposure factor, Frz
The exposure factor, Frz, is constant since the industrial premises height is smaller than 10
meters (point 4.2.3). Therefore, this factor has the value of:
Frz = c = 1.0
2.4) Topography factor, FT
Inasmuch as, the industrial premises will be founded on terrain practically flat, the
corresponding local topography factor (point 4.2.4) is equal to one.
2.5) Design speed, VD
The design speed, in this case is constant all the structure height, is (point 4.2):
VD = 1.0(1.0)(135) = 135.0 km/h
Provided that the site where the structure will be founded, this is practically at sea level;
the barometric pressure that corresponds to it is 760 mm Hg (Table 4.2.7). Also, the
annual mean temperature in this site is 27.2°C. Therefore, the G factor is:
Inasmuch as the structure height is smaller than 10 m, the base dynamic pressure is
constant in all its height. Thus, according to point 4.2.5:
qz = 0.047(1.0)(135.0) = 849.7 Pa (86.6 kg/m2)
4. III. 53
AIDS OF DESIGN
4) Selection of the analysis procedure of loads
As established in point 4.3.1, the ratio height/width is 8/16 = 0.5 < 5 and, because the
geometrical characteristics of the construction, it is not required the obtainment of the
fundamental period. With this, the structure is Type 1 (see point 4.1.4), therefore, the
static analysis will be used.
5) Design pressures
5.1) Design internal pressures
A) Wind parallel to the generatrices [see Figure III.24(a)]
From Table 4.3.10(b) (point 4.3.2.4) we have that, for Hc = 8 m, Cpi = 0.36, so that for this
wind direction, the design internal pressure is:
pi = 0.36(849.7) = 305.9 Pa (31.2 kg/m2)
B) Wind normal to the generatrices [see Figure III.24(b)]
The note w of Table 4.3.10(b) leads to case c) of Table 4.3.7(b); given that the ratio
between the door area and the sum of the openings of the other surfaces is greater than 6,
it will be used the coefficient Cpe given in Table 4.3.2, where it is concluded that if = Hc =
8 m, and the opening centroid is in this length, then Cpi = -0.65; therefore, for this direction
the design internal pressure is:
pi = -0.65(849.7) = -552.3 Pa (-56.3 kg/m2)
5.2) Design pressures for the main structure
In Figure III.24 are shown the zones where the main structure design pressures shall be
applied corresponding to the two orthogonal directions, independently between them,
where the analysis is carried out.
4. III. 54
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.24 Pressure zones for the main structure of the industrial premises
A) Wind parallel to the generatrices
According to Figure 4.3.9(b) of point 4.3.2.4, for L/Hc = 24/8 = 3, the external pressure
coefficient, Cpe, has the value of -0.38. Therefore, the design pressure of the main
structure of the cover, when the wind is parallel to the generatrices, is (point 4.3.2.1):
pd1 = pe – pi = -0.38(849.7) – (305.9) = -628.8 Pa (-64.1 kg/m2)
This pressure shall be applied in uniform way on the entire cover surface.
For the windward zone [zone 2 in Figure III.24(a)] the external pressure coefficient, Cpe,
has the value of 0.8 (Table 4.3.1) and for the leeward zone (zone 3), with d/b = 24/16 = 1.5,
this coefficient results equal to -0.4.
On the other hand, given that, for dealing with windward and leeward walls, the factor KA is
equal to one (point 4.3.2.1.1, reduction factor by area size) while, for being the main
structure, KL = 1 (point 4.3.2.1.1). Therefore, the design pressures of the main structure
of windward and leeward walls, when the wind is parallel to the generatrices, are,
respectively:
pd2 = 0.8(1.0)(1.0)(849.7) – (305.9) = 373.9 Pa (38.1 kg/m2)
pd3 = -0.41(1.0)(1.0)(849.7) – (305.9) = -645.8 Pa (-65.8 kg/m2)
In Figure III.25 are shown the design pressures of the main structure when the wind is
parallel to the generatrices.
4. III. 55
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.25 Design pressures for the main structure when wind is parallel to the generatrices
B) Wind normal to the generatrices
Because of λc = Hc/b = 8/16 = 0.5 and La / 4 = (πb/2)/4 = π/(16)/8 = 6.28 m, from Table
4.3.10(a) and Figure 4.3.9(c), the following is gotten for the cover:
For extreme zones, the external pressure coefficients are:
Cpe1B = 0.40 (windward zone)
Cpe1C = -0.54 (central zone)
Cpe1S = -0.42 (leeward zone)
And for the intermediate zone, they are:
Cpe1B = 0.40 (windward zone)
Cpe1C = -0.46 (central zone)
Cpe1S = -0.35 (leeward zone)
In turn, for the zones 2 and 3 (side walls) the external pressure coefficient varies according
to the horizontal distance measured at the direction of the 16 m (Table 4.3.2). Thus:
Cpe2 = Cpe3 = -0.65 (0.0 – 8.0 m)
Cpe2 = Cpe3 = -0.50 (8.0 – 16.0 m)
4. III. 56
AIDS OF DESIGN
Therefore, the design pressures for the main structure of the cover, when the wind is
normal to the generatrices, are:
For the extreme zones:
pd1B = 0.40(849.7) – (-552.3) = 892.2 Pa (90.0 kg/m2) (windward zone)
pd1C = -0.54(849.7) – (-552.3) = 93.5 Pa (-9.5 kg/m2) (central zone)
pd1S = -0.42(849.7) – (-552.3) = 195.4 Pa (19.9 kg/m2) (leeward zone)
For the central zone:
pd1B = 0.40(849.7) – (-552.3) = 892.2 Pa (90.0 kg/m2) (windward zone)
pd1C = -0.46(849.7) – (-552.3) = 161.4 Pa (16.5 kg/m2) (central zone)
pd1S = -0.35(849.7) – (-552.3) = 254.9 Pa (26.0 kg/m2) (leeward zone)
For side walls, zones 2 and 3 (see Figure III.24), it is considered that there are not main or
secondary elements resulting their tributary area greater than 100 m2; therefore the factor
KA = 0.8, according to Table 4.3.4. Given that this is about the main structure, then KL = 1.
Then, the pressures are:
pd2 = pd3 = -0.65(0.8)(1.0)(849.7) – (-552.3) = 110.5 Pa (11.3 kg/m2) (0.0 – 8.0 m)
pd2 = pd3 = -0.50(0.8)(1.0)(849.7) – (-552-3) = 212.4 Pa (21.7 kg/m2) (8.0 – 16.0 m)
In Figure III.26 are shown the design pressures of the main structure for the case in which
the wind is normal to the generatrices.
4. III. 57
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.26 Design pressures for the main structure when the wind is normal to the generatrices
5.3) Calculation of the design pressures for the structure coatings
5.3.1) Design pressures of the cover coatings
For obtaining the local pressure coefficients, Cpl, the following parameters shall be
calculated [Figure 4.3.9(d)]:
λc = Hc/b = 8/16 = 0.5, which causes the cover pertains to Group II
La = πb/2 = π/(16)/2 = 25.133 m
Y = 0.3Hc = 0.3(8) = 2.4 m
s = 0.25La = 0.25(25.133) = 6.28 m
With this information, the local pressure coefficients are:
For zone A:
Cpl1A = -0.92
For zone B:
Cp1B = -0.75 for a distance x from 0 to 0.3Hc = =0.3(8) = 2.4 m and from this, there is a
lineal variation of Cpl1B until getting a value of -0.44 at a distance x of 1.5Hc = 1.5(8) = 12 m.
4. III. 58
AIDS OF DESIGN
For zone C:
Cp1C = -0.75 for a distance x from 0 to 0.3Hc = =0.3(8) = 2.4 m and from this, there is a
lineal variation of Cpl1C until getting a value of -0.45 at a distance x of 1.5Hc = 1.5(8) = 12 m.
Therefore, the design local pressures for the cover coatings, when the wind is parallel to
the generatrices, are:
For zone A:
pd1A = -0.92(849.7) – (305.9) = -1087.6 Pa (-110.9 kg/m2)
For zone B:
pd1B = -0.75(849.7) – (305.9) = -943.2 Pa (-96.2 kg/m2) for x = 2.4 m
pd1B = -0.44(849.7) – (305.9) = -679.8 Pa (-69.3 kg/m2) for x = 12.0 m
For zone C:
pd1C = -0.75(849.7) – (305.9) = -943.2 Pa (-96.2 kg/m2) for x = 2.4 m
pd1C = -0.45(849.7) – (305.9) = -688.3 Pa (-70.2 kg/m2) for x = 12.0 m
In Figure III.27 these pressures are shown.
4. III. 59
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.27 Design local pressures for the cover coatings when the wind is parallel to the generatrices
For this wind direction changes only the internal pressure, therefore the design local
pressures for the cover coatings when the wind is normal to the generatrices, are:
For zone A:
pd1A = -0.92(849.7) – (-552.3) = 229.4 Pa (-23.4 kg/m2)
For zone B:
pd1B = -0.75(849.7) – (-552.3) = -85.0 Pa (-8.6 kg/m2) for x = 2.4 m
pd1B = -0.44(849.7) – (-552.3) = 178.4 Pa (18.2 kg/m2) for x = 12.0 m
For zone C:
pd1C = -0.75(849.7) – (-552.3) = -85.0 Pa (-8.6 kg/m2) for x = 2.4 m
4. III. 60
AIDS OF DESIGN
pd1C = -0.45(849.7) – (-552.3) = 169.9 Pa (17.3 kg/m2) for x = 12.9 m
In Figure III.28 are shown the design local pressures for the cover coatings when the wind
is perpendicular to the generatrices.
Figure III.28 Design local pressures for the cover coatings when the wind is normal to the generatrices
5.3.2) Design pressures of coatings of the walls
Provided that the tributary area of each one of the coatings is 0.93 m2, the reduction factor
KA is equal to one. Also, from Figure 4.3.4(a) it is obtained:
With which 0.5a0 = 1.6 m, a0 = 10.24 m2 and 0.25a02 = 2.56 m2.
4. III. 61
AIDS OF DESIGN
1. Windward wall (zone 2)
According with Table 4.3.1 the external pressure coefficient, Cpe is 0.8 and with Table
4.3.5 and point 4.3.2.1.1, the factor KL is equal to 1.25 or 1.00. So that, the design local
pressure for coatings of the windward wall, when the wind is parallel to the generatrices,
is:
pd2 = 0.8(1.0)(1.25)(849.7) – (305.9) = 543.8 Pa (55.4 kg/m2)
or
pd2 = 0.8(1.0)(1.0)(849.7) – (305.9) = 373.9 Pa (38.1 kg/m2)
From which can be observed that the first of them is the most unfavorable.
2. Leeward wall (zone 3)
In this wall, for d/b = 24/16 = 1.5, the external pressure coefficient is -0.4 (Table 4.3.1) and
KL = 1.0 because of it is not required in Table 4.3.5. Therefore, when the wind is parallel
to the generatrices, the design local pressure for the coatings of the leeward wall is:
pd3 = -0.4(1.0)(1.0)(849.7) – (305.9) = -645.8 Pa (-65.8 kg/m2)
In Figure III.29(a) are shown the design pressures for coatings of the windward and
leeward walls in the case the wind is parallel to the generatrices.
Figure III.29 Design local pressures for coatings of walls
4. III. 62
AIDS OF DESIGN
For this wind direction, the walls of zones 2 and 3 correspond to side walls and according
to Table 4.3.5 and point 4.3.2.1.1 the factor KL is equal to 2.0 or 1.0 for distances,
regarding the windward edge, between 0 and 1.6 m, and KL is equal to 1.5 or 1.0 for
distances between 0 and 3.2 m. Therefore, when the wind is normal to the generatrices,
the design pressures of the coatings of these walls are:
NOTE: The boldface values are the most unfavorable for the corresponding location regarding the windward
edge.
In Figure III.29(b) are shown the design pressures on coatings of the side walls for the
case when the wind is normal to the generatrices.
Finally, the comments made in example 4 also shall be applied for this example.
4. III. 63
AIDS OF DESIGN
APPLICATION EXAMPLE 6: Calculation of pressures produced by wind on a monopole

pole
It is desired to obtain the pressures the wind produces on a billboard located at the city of
Veracruz, Ver., on a suburban type terrain, surrounded mainly by low height houses. Its
geometry and dimensions are shown in the following figure; the fundamental frequency of
the structure, obtained with an analytical model, is 3.18 Hz.
Figure III.30 Billboard example
Following, the mentioned point refer to Volume of Recommendations, unless the

contrary is indicated.
Due to its importance the structure pertains to Group B (point 4.1.3).
According to its response before the wind action, in spite of its natural period of vibration is
smaller than one second, given the slenderness of the column, the structure is considered
4. III. 64
AIDS OF DESIGN
Type 3 (point 4.1.4) and, therefore, it will be necessary to obtain the wind effects by
means of dynamic analysis (point 4.1.6).
2) Design basic speed determination
The design basic speed depends on several parameters (point 4.2); these are calculated
as indicated next.
2.1) Terrain category (point 4.2.1)
According with the data, the terrain is classified in Category 3, Table 4.2.1.
2.2) Regional speed
The regional speed in the city of Veracruz, according to Table C.1 of Appendix C, for a
return period of 50 years, is:
VR = 170 km/h
2.3) Exposure factor, Frz (point 4.2.3)
According to point 4.4.4.1 [Figure 4.4.2(c)], the reference height is (see Figure III.31): zs =
H – h/2 = 13 – 3/2 = 11.5 m.
In Table 4.2.3 are gotten the following values for Category 3 terrain: c = 0.881, α = 0.156
and δ = 390, then the exposure factor is equal to:
Figure III.31 Dimensions of a monopole type billboard
2.4) Topography factor, FT (point 4.2.4)
4. III. 65
AIDS OF DESIGN
Since the billboard will be founded on a flat terrain and considering that the terrain has a
slope smaller than 5%, it is considered a FT = 1.0 (see Table 4.2.4).
2.5) Design basic speed, VD (point 4.2)
VD = (1.0)(0.90)(170) = 153.0 km/h = 42.5 m/s
The city of Veracruz is located at a height of 10 meters above sea level and the barometric
pressure is obtained interpolating among values of Table 4.2.5 for elevations of 0 and 500
msnm, resulting in 759.2 mm Hg; the correction factor for an annual mean temperature of
25.5° is:
Then, the base dynamic pressure (point 4.2.5) is:
qz = 0.047 G VD2 = 0.047 (0.997) (153.0)2 = 1096.9 Pa
4) Pressures and design forces
The acting pressure on the structure at the wind direction is obtained with expression
(point 4.4.3):
pz = Cpqz
A) Wind normal to the billboard plan
Wind force on the terrain
- Net pressure coefficient, Cpn (point 4.3.2.8)
With the ratios b/h = 6/3 = 2.0, and h/H = 3/13 = 0.23 (see Figure III.31) it is obtained the
net pressure coefficient of the billboard from Table 4.3.16(a):
Cpn = 1.3 + 0.5 [0.3 + log10(b/h)] (0.8 – h/H)
Cpn = 1.3 + 0.5 [0.3 + log10(2.)] (0.8 – 0.23) = 1.471
- Acting pressure on the structure, pz (point 4.4.3)
The design pressure is:
4. III. 66
AIDS OF DESIGN
pz = (1.471)(1096.9) = 1613.5 Pa
- Exposure factor, F’rz (point 4.4.2.1)
In the dynamic analysis for calculating the exposure factor, F’rz, for Category 3 terrain, from
Table 4.4.1, are taken the values of the parameters = 0.77, α’ = 0.21 and from Table
4.4.2 = 0.61, = 0.29, z0 = 0.30 and zmin = 5, it is obtained:
- Design mean speed, V’D (point 4.4.2)
- Equivalent dynamic force, Feq (point 4.4.4)
The equivalent dynamic force is obtained with the expression (point 4.4.4)
Feq(z) = pz Aexp FAD
- Dynamic amplification factor, FAD (point 4.4.4.1)
Next it is described the obtainment of the dynamic amplification factor following that
indicated in point 4.4.4.1.
The turbulence intensity is given by:
If the length of the scale of turbulence at the reference height zS = 11.5 m, is:
The bottom factor will be equal to:
4. III. 67
AIDS OF DESIGN
Considering that the fundamental frequency of the structure is n1,x = 3.18 Hz, the density
spectrum of wind power is:
Considering that:
The function of aerodynamic admittance for the fundamental mode, Rh, will be:
And if:
The aerodynamic admittance function for the fundamental mode, Rh, will be:
Considering that the pole is of steel without coating, the damping ratio can be considered
equal to that of a welded steel chimney without coating in Table 4.4.3, as the other values
are null, the value of the total damping ratio will be: = 0.002, and the response factor in
resonance, R2:
4. III. 68
AIDS OF DESIGN
The frequency of crossings by zero or mean rate of oscillations:
Then the peak factor is equal to:
Finally, the dynamic amplification factor, FAD, is equal to:
With this, the equivalent force on the billboard is:
Feq = pz Aexo FAD = (1613.5)(6)(3)(1.53) = 44436 N = 4531.2 kg
Wind force on the column
Considering that the column (up to the base of the billboard) has a height of 10 m, the
design speed is:
VD = FT Frz VR = 1.0(0.881)170 = 149.77 km/h = 41.60 m/s
Assuming that it is about a smooth surface, round, galvanized steel, with an average
height of the surface roughness of hr = 0.15 mm, and if we have that hr / b = 0.15/508 =
0.00030 < 0.00002, from Table 4.3.22 it is obtained the drag coefficient for bVD =
(0.508)(41.60) = 21.13 m2/s ≥ 10 m2/s:
Ca = 1.6 + 0.105 ln(hr/b) = 1.6 + 0.105 ln(0.15 / 508) = 0.747
As the entire column is at a height smaller than 10 meters, the design speed of the same
and the base dynamic pressure is:
qz = 0.047(0.997)(149.77)2 = 1051.1 Pa
Therefore, the design pressure is:
4. III. 69
AIDS OF DESIGN
pz = (0.747)(1051.1) = 785.2 Pa
and the equivalent dynamic force per meter of height, is:
Feq(z) =pz Aexp FAD = (785.2)(0.508 x 1.0)(1.53) = 610.3 N/m = 62.2 kg/m
B) Wind at 45°
For wind at 45°, the net pressure coefficient of the billboard, according to Table 4.3.16(b)
is the same than for the wind at 0°. On the other hand, it is considered that the dynamic
amplification factor is the same than in the case of wind normal to the billboard plan. For
that, the results will be equal than in the case of wind normal to the billboard plan; however,
there is an eccentricity of the force on the billboard:
e = 0.2b = 0.2(3.0) = 0.6 m
C) Wind parallel to the billboard plan
For the wind parallel to the billboard plan, the exposed area is very small; therefore, from
Table 4.3.16(d) considering the ratio h/H = 3/13 = 0.23, it is taken the net pressure
coefficient Cpn = ± 1.2, so the design pressure is:
pz(z) = (1.2)(1096.9) = 1316.3 Pa
and the equivalent dynamic force on the billboard, using the same dynamic amplification
factor, is:
Feq(z) = pz Aexp FAD = (1316.3)(6 x 3)(153) = 36251 N = 3696.6 kg
On the column there is the same force per length unit than in the previous cases.
In the following figures are illustrated the forces on the three cases mentioned before.
4. III. 70
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.32 Forces with wind normal to the billboard plan
Figure III.33 Forces with wind at 45° of the billboard plan
4. III. 71
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.34 Forces with wind parallel to the billboard plan
5) Effect of periodic vortices
The effect of periodic vortices (point 4.4.7) can be rejected if satisfied:
V’D < 0.8 Vcrit
The periodic vortices will be present on the column, for that, the exposure factor, F’rz, at a
height of 10 meters is:
F’rz = 0.702(0.77) = 0.5405
And the design mean speed, V’D is:
The critical speed of the periodic vortices is obtained considering the Strouhal number for
a circular section, St =0.20 (point 4.4.7.1):
4. III. 72
AIDS OF DESIGN
Therefore, the effect of periodic vortices shall be studied.
The forces due to periodic vortices are calculated with expression (point 4.4.7.2):
Fw(z) = (2πn1,x)2 m(z)Φ1,y(z)YFmax
For that, it is necessary to obtain the maximum displacement:
YFmax = σykp
σy is obtained by solving for:
For knowing the coefficients c1 and c2, it is necessary to obtain aL, Ka and Ca, which values
depend on the Reynolds number which value is:
The coefficients aL, Ka and Ca are obtained interpolating among values of the Table 4.4.4.
It is precise to note that these coefficients vary lineally with the logarithm of the Reynolds
number that, in this case is in the interval from 105 to 5 x 105, then:
log(105) = 5.0; log(5 x 105) = 5.699; log(2.74 x 105) = 5.4378
aL = 0.4
Ka = Ka,max f(Iv)
f(Iv) = 0.25
4. III. 73
AIDS OF DESIGN
and the coefficients c1 and c2 are calculated with:
For that, the equivalent mass per length unit was obtained with the following equation,
from the results of a numerical model of analysis per finite element, considering a mass of
1050 kg, corresponding to the billboard at the upper part of the column, between 10 and
30 meters high, with an average height of 11.5 m.
In the calculation of coefficient c2, h is equal to the column height
and the maximum displacement is:
YF,max = 0.000685 x 3.799 = 0.00260 m
Finally, the inertia force per length unit is obtained as:
4. III. 74
AIDS OF DESIGN
Fw(z) = (2πn1,y)2 m(z)Φ1,y(z)YF,max
Remember that in this example, it was normalized the modal shape so, the maximum
value is one, then:
From the results of the analytic model it was found that λ = 1.3076, then the force in
Newton per length unit at any height, due to the column mass, is obtained with:
Fw(z) = (2π x 3.18)2(311)Φ1,y(z)0.00260 = 322.81Φ1,y(z)
The results of the force in function of height, dividing the column into ten sections of 1
meter, are summarized in the following table:
Inertia forces by vortices
The inertia force due to the billboard mass is obtained using its mass instead the mass per
length unit of the column and the modal shape at the average height of its mass:
Fw(z) = (2π x 3.18)2(1050)(0.850)0.00260 = 928.57 N
4. III. 75
AIDS OF DESIGN
APPLICATION EXAMPLE 7: Calculation of pressures produced by the wind on a

telecommunications tower
It is desired to obtain the pressures the wind produces on a telecommunications tower

located at the city of Toluca, Estado de Mexico. The height above sea level of the site is
2680 meters and has an annual mean temperature of 13.4°C. The terrain at the
surrounding zones corresponds to farms with few obstructions, with a flat local topography.
The geometry and general dimensions of the tower are shown in Figure III.35. As it can
be appreciated, this is a tower of equilateral triangular section of 36 m high, with variable
cross section, from a base width of 2.10 m to 1.0 m at the upper part. On the frontal face
there is a guide bed formed by angles of equal sides of 1 ½” x 3/16” on which are
supported twelve feeder cables or feeders with an external diameter of 2.819 cm. On the
left posterior face is located a ladder formed by angles of the same geometry than the
guide bed. The details of the guide bed and ladder are appreciated in Figure III.35. As
much the guide bad with its cables, as the ladder, are developed in the entire height of the
tower. It has also two drum type antennas at the levels 20.25 m and 32.05 m. The
diameters of the antennas are 60 cm and 70 cm and their weights are 31.0 kg and 38.0 kg,
respectively.
The points, tables and figures named in this example refer to Volume of
Recommendations.
1) Structure classifications
The tower is important part of a process that requires keeping the communication, so that,
according to its importance, the structure is classified within the Group A (point 4.1.3).
The tower has a slenderness ratio λ = h/b = 36/1.55 = 23.23 > 5, therefore, according to its
response before the wind action, the structure is Type 2 (point 4.1.4).
4. III. 76
AIDS OF DESIGN
Figure III.35 Geometry and content of the telecommunication tower under study
4. III. 77
AIDS OF DESIGN
2) Determination of the design basic speed
The design basic speed depends on several parameters (point 4.2); these are calculated
as indicated next.
2.1) Terrain category
According with the data, the terrain corresponds to the Category 2, Table 4.2.1.
2.2) Regional speed
From the importance of the structure it shall be used a wind speed with a return period of
200 years. The regional speed that corresponds to the City of Toluca, Estado de Mexico,
from Table C.1 of Appendix C is:
VR = 120 km/h
2.3) Topography factor, FT (point 4.2.4)
Inasmuch as the telecommunication tower will be founded on a flat terrain and considering
that the terrain has a slope smaller than 5%, it is used a correction factor by topography of
FT = 1.0 (Table 4.2.4).
3) Procedure selection for determining the wind actions
According to point 4.1.5, if the structure classification in function of its response before the
wind action is Type 2, the wind effects will be evaluated with the recommendations of the
dynamic analysis (point 4.4).
4) Design pressures and forces
In the dynamic analysis, the wind effect are obtained from the wind pressures, affected by
a dynamic amplification factor that takes into account the wind fluctuating characteristics
and the physical and dynamic properties of the structures. According with the point 4.4.3,
the pressure at the wind direction is obtained with the expression:
p z = Cp q z
5) Calculation of the dynamic amplification factor, FAD
For lattice self supporting towers, the equivalent dynamic force is obtained with the
following expression (point 4.4.5):
Feq = qz Cat Aref FAD
4. III. 78
AIDS OF DESIGN
The dynamic amplification factor, FAD, is obtained with the expression:
- Corrective factors of the modal shape, CRG and CG
In order to calculate the corrective factors of the modal shape (point 4.4.5.1) previously
we have:
Then:
- Bottom response factor, B2
First take from Table 4.4.2 for Category 2 terrain the value of = 0.52, then calculate the
turbulence scale length at the height zS = 36 m:
So, that the bottom response factor is:
- Correction factor by mass and modal shape, FM
4. III. 79
AIDS OF DESIGN
The natural frequency of vibration was calculated with a three-dimension model, using a
commercial program of analysis, considering the own weight of the structure and fittings,
obtaining:
n1,x = 1.47863 Hz
The correction factor by mass and modal shape is determined with:
Where λm is the variation exponent of the modal shape with the height assuming a
variation of the modal shape of Φ(z) = (z/h)λm. In this example, the value of λm was
determined from the first mode shape, carrying out an adjustment by the method of the
least-squares, resulting:
λm = 1.6469
The generalized mass (point 4.4.5.1) was calculated with the following expression,
dividing the tower in sections and numerically integrating:
And the tower total mass, including fittings and antennas, is:
mtotal = 4594.643 kg
Substituting values, the correction factor by mass and modal shape it results:
- Design mean speed, V’D
For the following calculations it is required to know the design mean speed value at the
reference height, zS, that is equal to the tower height. For that, it is obtained the exposure
factor, F’rz, with the parameters for Category 2 terrain; from Table 4.4.1, point 4.4.2.1: =
1.00 and α’ = 0.16; then:
4. III. 80
AIDS OF DESIGN
Applying that indicated in point 4.4.2, the design mean speed:
- Response factor in resonance, R2
The values of the variables that intervene in the formula for the response factor in
resonance will be obtained as follows:
The reduced frequencies, ηh and ηb, are determined with:
Then, the aerodynamic admittance functions result in:
The power density spectrum, SL(z, η1,x) evaluated at a height zS, and for the fundamental
frequency of vibration of the structure at the longitudinal direction is,
Therefore, the resonant response factor, considering a structural damping ratio, , of

0.005 corresponding to screwed lattice towers (see Table 4.4.3):
4. III. 81
AIDS OF DESIGN
- Peak factor, kp
The peak factor kp is:
Where:
Therefore:
From Table 4.4.2, it is taken the value of zmin = 2 m < zS = 36 m < zmax = 200 m and =
0.19 for a Category 2 terrain; therefore, the turbulence index at the reference height is
obtained as:
Finally, from the obtained values, the FAD results:
6) Forces on the tower and fittings
The equivalent forces on different sections of the tower are obtained with the expression
given previously, where the reference area, Aref, corresponds to the area of the front face
members of the considered section projected perpendicularly at the wind direction, AAt.
Feq = qz Cat AAt FAD
It is important to mention that the dynamic amplification factor is the same for all tower
sections; however, the base dynamic pressure will depend on the average height of each
section.
4. III. 82
AIDS OF DESIGN
The drag coefficient on the tower sections without fittings are obtained as indicated in
point 4.3.2.12.1.1, from Table 4.3.19 because of being a equilateral triangular section
tower with flat side members.
The tower was divides in twelve sections; the upper heights (ztop), the solid area (AAt) and
the total area (ATOT) that delimit each section, the solidity ratios ( ) and the drag
coefficients (Cat), are summarized in the following table.
The drag coefficients of each section were calculated interpolating among the values of
Table 4.3.19; for example: for section 1, the solidity ratio is:
The drag coefficients for equilateral triangular section towers for solidity ratios of 0.2 and
0.3 are 2.7 and 2.3 respectively. Interpolating between these values for = 0.255 it is
obtained:
6.1) Fittings
The equivalent forces on fittings are taken into account as indicated in point 4.3.2.12.1.2.
This is gotten by adding its area to the area projected of the tower, when they are installed
4. III. 83
AIDS OF DESIGN
symmetrically; on the contrary, it is modified the tower drag coefficient, getting the
following:
The additional drag coefficient ΔCat for each fitting is calculated using the following
equation:
ΔCat = Cau Kre Kin (Aa / AAt)
The tower fittings can be observed in Figure III.35. At the external part of the front face
are housed twelve feeding cables, known as “feeders”, that go in vertical direction on the
entire height of the tower. Each one of these cables, considering the isolating coating, has
an external diameter of 2.819 cm (1.11 inches). These cables are supported on a guide
bed of 50 centimeters wide, manufactured with angles of 1 ½” x 3/16”, the transversal
profiles are placed each 30 centimeters. On the left posterior face of the tower there is a
ladder with the same characteristics than the guide bed. Due to the physical
characteristics of the fittings and their location, they can be grouped in three types of
fittings: guide bed, feeders and ladder. This is because of although the guide bed and the
ladder are equal they are located in different faces of the tower; therefore, they have
different wind incidence angle. Next, it is exemplified the calculation of ΔCat of these three
groups of elements in the first section, assuming that the wind has incidence at the
direction perpendicular to the front face of the tower.
Feeders
The cables have a circular transversal section. According to Table A.1 of Appendix A, to
circular section corresponds a drag coefficient Cau = 1.2.
The correction factor by slenderness ratio, Kre, shall be obtained from Table A.4 in
Appendix A, where because of being very large elements, with a slenderness ratio
greater than 40, Kre = 1.0.
As the wind has incidence on the front face (θ = 0°) and the cables are at the external part
of such face, the correction factor by interference is:
The exposed area of the feeders in section 1 is:
Aa = 12 x 0.02819 x 3.833 = 1.297 m2
4. III. 84
AIDS OF DESIGN
With this:
Guide bed
The guide ladder is formed by angle profiles of equal sides. The drag coefficient of these
elements, in function of the incidence angle of the wind, is taken from Table A.3 in
Appendix A:
Cau = 1.8
As in the previous case, because of dealing with very large elements, with a slenderness
ratio greater than 40:
Kre = 1.0
As in the previous case, the correction factor by interference is:
Kin = [1.5 + 0.5cos2(0°-90°)]exp[-1.8(2.48 x 0.255)2] = 0.487
The exposed area of the ladder angles in the section, considering steps each 30
centimeters, is:
Therefore:
Ladder
The ladder has the same geometry than the guide bed. However, the wind incidence
angle is different. Strictly, the drag coefficient of the profiles that integrate the ladder is
different in each one, due to the position of the angles. An average value, calculated in
function of the wind angle regarding each profile, in function of the length of these
elements per meter is 1.514. Nevertheless, in this example, it is assumed that:
Cau = 1.8
4. III. 85
AIDS OF DESIGN
Kre = 1.0
As the ladder is located on the left posterior face, θ = 240°, and the correction factor by
interference, results:
Kin = [1.5 + 0.5cos2(240°-90°)]exp[-1.8(2.48 x 0.255)2] = 0.852
The area of the ladder angles is Aa = 0.535 m2, then:
ΔCat = 1.8(1.0)(0.852)[(0.535)/(1.993)] = 0.412
Consequently, the drag coefficient of the section 1 of the tower, including the fittings is:
Cat = 2.48 + 0.38 + 0.235 + 0.412 = 3.507
The results of the coefficients obtained in each section, for each type of fitting are shown in
the following tables:
4. III. 86
AIDS OF DESIGN
6.2) Forces on the tower
The forces on each tower section, including the fittings, are obtained with the following
expression (point 4.4.5):
Feq = qz Cate AAt FAD
For example, in the first section, the average height is:
z = 1.9165 m,
The topography factor, for flat zone is:
FT = 1.0
The correction factor by exposure, according to point 4.2.3, for being at a height smaller
than 10 meters is:
Frz = c = 1.00
Therefore, the design speed is:
4. III. 87
AIDS OF DESIGN
VD = FT Frz VR = 120 km/h
And the base dynamic pressure is:
qz = 0.047 G VD2
Considering a height above the sea level of 2680 meters, the barometric pressure is
obtained interpolating between the values of Table 4.2.5, for 2500 and 3000 msnm, being
of 552.4 mm Hg; thus, the correction factor for a temperature of 13.4°C is:
qz = 0.047 x 0.756 x (120)2 = 511.66 N/m2
With this, the force on the first section is:
Feq = 511.66 (3.507)(1.993)(1.621) = 5797 N
If it is desired to know the forces on the fittings, it will be sufficient to use ΔCat instead of
Cate in the previous expression. For example, for the guide bed:
Feq = 511.66 (0.235)(1.993)(1.621) = 388 N
The forces in each section and fitting are summarized in the following table:
4. III. 88
AIDS OF DESIGN
7) Calculation of the forces on the microwave antennas
Antenna 1
The first microwave antenna has 0.6 m of diameter and an area of Aa = 0.283 m2. It is
located at a height of z = 20.25 m, with this the correction factor by exposure, according to
point 4.2.3 is:
And the design speed is:
VD = FT Frz VR = 131.34 km/h
Therefore, the base dynamic pressure is:
qz = 0.047 x 0.756 x (131.34)2 = 612.9 N/m2
As it can be observed in Figure III.35, the antenna is on the main face. As in the
calculation it is assumed that the wind has an incidence on such face, the wind incidence
angle is zero degrees and the force on it at the wind direction, corresponds to the force Fam.
The coefficient is taken from Table A.7 of Appendix A, for drum type microwave antennas,
where for zero degrees is:
Ca = 1.2617
And the force at the wind direction is obtained as:
Fam = qz Gh Ca Aa
As obtained the effects on the tower,
Gh = FAD = 1.621
With this:
Fam = 612.9 x 1.621 x 1.2617 x 0.283 = 354.7 N
In this case:
CS = Cm = 0.0
4. III. 89
AIDS OF DESIGN
Therefore, there is not transversal force or moment on the antenna.
Antenna 2
The second microwave antenna has 0.7 m of diameter and an area of Aa = 0.385 m2. At
the height where it is located, z = 32.05 m, the correction factor by exposure, according to
point 4.2.3 is:
Then, the design speed is:
VD = FT Frz VR = 139.3 km/h
And the base dynamic pressure is:
qz = 0.047 x 0.756 x (139.3)2 = 689.5 N/m2
As it can be observed in Figure III.35, this antenna has an angle of 90° regarding the wind
when has incidence on the frontal face. In this case, the force at the wind direction is the
force FSm. The coefficients are taken from Table A.7 of Appendix A, which for 90° are:
CS = 0.625
Ca = - 0.1094
Cm = 0.098
The force at the wind direction is:
FSm = qz Gh CS Aa = 689.5 x 1.621 x 0.625 x 0.385 = 268.9 N
And the transversal force and the moment are:
Fam = qz Gh Ca Aa = 689.5 x 1.621 x (-0.1094) x 0.385 = - 47.1 N
Mm = qz Gh Cm Aa D1 = 689.5 x 1.621 x 0.098 x 0.385 x 0.7 = 29.5 N-m
4. III. 90
AIDS OF DESIGN
The weather changes in the world have increased the frequency of disastrous aeolian
events.
Mexico has not been the exception of being affected by storms that have generates
intense winds, being the hurricanes that hit both coasts of our country, the originators of
the most disasters. If the direct or indirect material losses caused on the civil Works
infrastructure for these events can be considerable, the loss of human lives, even though
are not numerous, becomes incalculable.
In this new version of the Manual of Wind Design, the criteria for the design of structures
against the wind action has been reviewed and renewed with the purpose to obtain more
reliable designs but also optimal regarding the total cost of the possible losses if a
structural failure would occur.
In order to guarantee the correct operation of the civil Works, in the current design of the
structures shall be taken into account the safety of the Works and their occupants, the
performance during their useful life and the respect to environment. For achieving it, shall
be looked for the optimal risk level from the cost-benefit point of view that satisfy an
acceptable performance for the society, considering that an investment increased in its
initial reliability leads to a reduction in the risk levels.
It is indispensable that the engineer has this knowledge and uses it for increasing the
safety and performance of the structures before the wind action; therefore, it has been the
goal to present in methodology way, the procedures that estimate the wind effects on
different types of structures, taking into account the latent aeolian danger in out country.
Dr. Alberto López López

December, 2008.
4. III. 91

CFE MDOC 2008 Civil Manual Chapter 4. Wind

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

CFE MDOC 2008 Civil Manual Chapter 4. Wind

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMISIÓN FEDERAL DE ELECTRICIDAD

CIVIL WORKS DESIGN MANUAL

COMISIÓN FEDERAL DE ELECTRICIDAD

Ing. Alfredo Elías Ayub

Ing. Benjamín Granados Domínguez

México, D. F., December, 2008

CIVIL WORKS DESIGN MANUAL

SUBJECT 1. DESIGN CRITERIA

Elaboration Dr. Alberto López López (1)

WIND DESIGN MANUAL, EDITION 2008

Dr. Alberto López López

4.2 DETERMINATION OF THE DESIGN BASIC SPEED, VD 1

4.3 STATIC ANALYSIS 1

4.4 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 1

4.4.7.1Critical speed of periodic vortices, Vcrit 23

4A FORCE AND DRAG COEFFICIENTS 1

4B AEROLASTIC INSTABILITY AND SERVICE CONDITIONS 1

4.1 WIND DESIGN CRITERIA

4.1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

The variables considered as requirements to resist the wind action are:

c) Safety against overturning. The safety of constructions shall be verified without

g) Safety during the construction. In this stage it is necessary to establish the

4.1.3 CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR IMPORTANCE

terminals, telephone centrals and main telecommunication real state,

GROUP C Structures for which it is recommended a low safety grade. Structures

4.1.4 CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPONSE

smaller than or equal to one second. Most of the habitation or offices

TYPE 2 Structures that, because of their high slenderness ratio or reduced

4.1.5 WIND ACTIONS TO CONSIDER

ACTION IV Aerodynamic instability. This is generated by the dynamic amplification of

4.1.6 PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING ACTIONS GENERATED BY WIND

Finally, in Appendix B some general recommendations are given in regard to aerolastic

Note: The numbers in brackets refer to index points.

4.2 DETERMINATION OF THE DESIGN BASIC SPEED, VD

The design basic speed, in km/h, is obtained with the equation:

FT is the factor that depends on local topography, dimensionless

4.2.1 TERRAIN CATEGORIES ACCORDING TO THEIR ROUGHNESS

Table 4.2.1 TERRAIN CATEGORY ACCORDING TO ITS ROUGHNESS

Cat. Description Examples Limitations

4.2.2 ISOTACH MAPS. REGIONAL SPEED, VR

4.2.2.1 Regional speed for a fixed return period

4.2.2.2 Optimal regional speed

CI is the initial cost of the construction, and

4.2.3 EXPOSURE FACTOR, Frz

c is the roughness scale coefficient, dimensionless

4.2.4 TOPOGRAPHY FACTOR, FT

Table 4.2.4 LOCAL TOPOGRAPHY FACTOR, FT

within the local affectation hatched zone (see Figures

c) if within the flow separation zone, Ls=Ht/4, (see Figure

Within the local affectation hatched zone (see Figure

4.2.6 (c)), apply equation 4.2.7

L2 longitudinal scale to determine the horizontal variation of FT, it is considered equal

1. Scale experiments in wind tunnels

4.2.5 BASE DYNAMIC PRESSURE, qz

VD is the design basic speed, in km/h, defined in point 4.2

The G value is obtained with the following expression:

Ω is the barometric pressure, in mm Hg, and

τ is the ambient temperature, in °C

4.2.6 ACTING PRESSURE ON STRUCTURES, pz

The acting pressure on a determined construction, pz, in Pa, is obtained by considering

Where the coefficient Cp is denominated pressure coefficient and is dimensionless.

• Pressure coefficients on surfaces, determine the external or internal pressures

4.2.7 ACTING FORCE ON STRUCTURES

The static force will be calculated with the following expression: