Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10

Part VII

Wind Tunnel Testing

Wind Tunnel Testing
Mean Recurrence Intervals of Load Effects
Section 31.4.1 - ........................................................................................................................................112
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Limitations on Loads
Section 31.4.3 - ........................................................................................................................................113

Part VII - Wind Tunnel Testing 111

Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10
 Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10

31.4.1 Modification
31.4. 1 | Mean Recurrence Intervals of Load Effects

Mean Recurrence Intervals of Load Effects

At a Glance
New language is added providing direction on wind-induced effects for Strength Design or Allowable
stress Design for specific recurrence intervals.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2010 Standard
31.4 6.6.4 LOAD EFFECTS Limitations

31.4.1 Mean Recurrence Intervals of Load Effects.

The load effect required for Strength Design shall be determined for the same mean recurrence
interval as for the Analytical Method, by using a rational analysis method, defined in the recognized
literature, for combining the directional wind tunnel data with the directional meteorological data or
probabilistic models based thereon. The load effect required for Allowable Stress Design shall be equal
to the load effect required for Strength Design divided by 1.6. For buildings that are sensitive to possible
variations in the values of the dynamic parameters, sensitivity studies shall be required to provide a
rational basis for design recommendations.

31.4.2 6.6.4.1 Limitations on Wind Speeds.

The Variation of basic wind speeds with direction shall not be permitted unless the analysis for
wind speeds conforms to the requirements of and probabilistic estimates based thereon shall be subject to
the limitations described in Section 26.5.3 6.5.4.2.

C31.4.1 Mean Recurrence Intervals of Load Effects. Examples of analysis methods for combining
directional wind tunnel data with the directional meteorological data or probabilistic models based
thereon are described in Lepage and Irwin (1985), Rigato et al. (2001), Isyumov et al. (2003), Irwin et al.
(2005), Simiu and Filliben (2005), and Simiu and Miyata (2006).

Analysis and Commentary

Previous editions of ASCE 7 did not contain requirements for determining the wind-induced effects for
Strength Design or Allowable Stress Design for specific recurrence intervals. When combining historical
wind data or probabilistic models with wind tunnel tests, the load effects for Strength Design should be
based on the same mean recurrence interval as the analytical methods (Directional Procedure – Chapter
27; Envelope Procedure – Chapter 28). The commentary has been revised to include 6 new references for
examples for making these determinations.

Section 31.4.2 has been revised to clarify that directional effects can be obtained by methods
other than design speeds assigned to each direction. Currently, there are several methods for statistically
evaluating directional effects and not all involve directional wind speeds explicitly. The new language
provides a more general applicability.

112 Part VII - Wind Tunnel Testing

Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10
 Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10

31.4.3 Addition

31.4.3 | Limitations on Loads

Limitations on Loads

At a Glance
Lower limits on loads determined from wind tunnel testing are relocated from the commentary and
adapted for inclusion directly in the standard.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2010 Standard
31.4.3 Limitations on Loads.

Loads for the main wind force resisting system determined by wind tunnel testing shall be limited
such that the overall principal loads in the x and y directions are not less than 80 percent of those that
would be obtained from Part 1 of Chapter 27 or Part 1 of Chapter 28. The overall principal load shall be
based on the overturning moment for flexible buildings and the base shear for other buildings.

Pressures for components and cladding determined by wind tunnel testing shall be limited to not
less than 80 percent of those calculated for Zone 4 for walls and Zone 1 for roofs using the procedure of
Chapter 30. These Zones refer to those shown in Figs. 30.4-1, 30.4-2A, 30.4-2B, 30.4-2C, 30.4-3, 30.4-
4, 30.4-5A, 30.4-5B, 30.4-6, 30.4-7, and 30.6-1.

The limiting values of 80 percent may be reduced to 50 percent for the main wind force resisting
system and 65 percent for components and cladding if either of the following conditions applies:

1. There were no specific influential buildings or objects within the detailed proximity model.
2. Loads and pressures from supplemental tests for all significant wind directions in which
specific influential buildings or objects are replaced by the roughness representative of the
adjacent roughness condition, but not rougher than exposure B, are included in the test results.

Analysis and Commentary

Wind tunnel tests frequently yield wind loads that are significantly lower than those required by the
analytical or simplified methods. This is due to several factors that include:
• The likelihood that the highest wind speeds occur at directions where the building’s shape or
pressure coefficients are less than their maximum values
• Specific buildings included in the detailed proximity model that may provide shielding in
excess of that implied by the Exposure Categories
• Conservatism inherent in enveloping of load coefficients in Chapters 28 and 30.

The shielding effect can be particularly influential. In some cases, adjacent structures may shield
the structure sufficiently that removal of one or two structures could significantly increase the design wind
loads. It is for this reason primarily that ASCE 7-10 now specifically limits the reductions permitted from
wind tunnel testing to 80% of the results obtained form Part1 of Chapter 27 (Directional Procedure for
all building heights), Part 1 of Chapter 28 (Envelope Procedure for low-rise buildings), and Chapter 30
(Components and Cladding). Similar limits were identified in the commentary of ASCE 7-05.

Part VII - Wind Tunnel Testing 113

Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10
 Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10

For components and cladding, the 80% limit is based on the pressures determined using Zones 1
31.4.3 | Limitations on Loads

(interior roof) and 4 (interior wall) for the applicable building configuration. The pressures on the edges
are the most likely to be reduced by taking into account the specific geometry of the building in question
as opposed to the rectangular prismatic buildings assumed by Chapter 30.

For MWFRS loads, the 80% limit is a little more complex because the load effects (stresses,
forces, etc.) at any point are the combined effect of a vector of applied loads instead of a simple scalar
value. In general the ratio of forces or moments for example, at various floors throughout the building
using a wind tunnel study will not be same as those ratios determined from Chapters 27 or 28. Requiring
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

each and every load effect from a wind tunnel test to be no less than 80% of the same effect resulting
from Chapters 27 or 28 is impractical and unnecessarily complex. Therefore the limit is applied as a
criterion that characterizes the overall loading. For flexible buildings, the most descriptive criterion of
overall loading is the base overturning moment. For other buildings, the base shear is the recommended
criterion instead.

The standard does permit the lower limits on loads from a wind tunnel study to be further
reduced. Due to the significant effect of shielding, ASCE 7 permits the lower limits to be reduced if
there were no influential buildings or objects located in the detailed proximity model or if supplemental
tests were performed removing the influential building or object from the detailed proximity model in
replacing it with roughness comparable to the adjacent roughness but no rougher than Surface Roughness
B. When either of these two conditions are met, the limiting values of 80 percent may be reduced to 50
percent for the main wind force resisting system and 65 percent for components and cladding. A greater
reduction is permitted for MWFRS loads because Component and Cladding loads are more sensitive
to local channeling effects when surroundings change and may be dramatically increased when a new
adjacent building is constructed.

Situations where wind loads could be legitimately reduced to less than the 80-percent limit are
easily conceived, particularly cases involving justifiable blockage. Consider a building having an open
central atrium. The glass or cladding facing this open area is well protected, and therefore subjected to
reduced loads, yet the neither the analytical method nor the simplified method address this situation.
These methods would require the cladding to be designed as any other exterior cladding. The atrium
needn’t be completely enclosed to affect the wind loads on the cladding on the inside walls (imagine a
C-shaped building). Even in this situation, the cladding on the inside walls may be subject to greatly
reduced loads, because airflow through this portion is still partly obstructed.

Similar situations can occur when the blockage occurs from a separate tower, such as twin towers
on a common podium, or perhaps even totally separate, but very close towers. However, this situation can
be very sensitive to the exact geometry and cases of wind pressure amplification can occur. Components
and cladding pressures in some areas are likely to be greatly reduced. MWFRS loads in some directions
can also be greatly reduced such as in the case of in-line loads when the two buildings are aligned with
the wind direction. This is not unlike the case of two race cars “drafting” in which one follows very close
behind another: the total wind resistance on the two cars is similar to the resistance on a single car, but
this resistance is shared between the two cars, thus allowing higher speeds for both cars.

114 Part VII - Wind Tunnel Testing

Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10
 Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10

31.4.3 | Limitations on Loads

wind direction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

X
Wind Forces in this direction
may be significantly reduced
for both buildings depending
on the spacing, X, between
the buildings.

Wind Shielding from Two Close Towers

Wind Shielding from Two Close Towers

Another case of justifiable blocking is a penthouse (mechanical overrun, etc.) on the roof of
a building, where a tall parapet or screenwall exists around the perimeter of the roof. Although likely
intended for visual shielding, such a wall can be very effective in shielding the penthouse from wind and
thus the penthouse framework may be subjected to greatly reduced loads.

Parapet Wall Parapet Wall

Mechanical
Penthouse

wind direction

Wind Shielding from a Parapet Wall

Wind Shielding from a Parapet Wall

Part VII - Wind Tunnel Testing 115

Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10
 Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10

In some shielding cases, it may not be obvious from where, exactly, the benefit is derived.
31.4.3 | Limitations on Loads

The intent of the code is to allow such benefits when they are inherently derived from the shape of the
building itself, or when it is at least under the control of the same owner (as in two close buildings that
are part of the same project). The “additional tests” that are required to justify large load reductions are
designed to demonstrate if the reduction is an inherent feature of the project itself, or whether it is due to
some specific yet independent nearby project: if loads less than 80 percent only occur when such nearby
projects are removed from the test area model, then the excess reduction is not allowed.

For MWFRS loads, it is also easy to conceive of building shapes that are entitled to a large
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 04/21/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

reduction because of an overall shape factor that is much more “aerodynamically efficient” than the
simple rectangular shapes addressed in the Standard. The simplest case is that of a circular cylinder,
which has a drag coefficient of perhaps 1 or so, compared to a drag coefficient of about 2.1 for a square
cylinder, and as high as 2.8 for a rectangular cylinder. Thus, it is easy to see that MWFRS loads on a
circular building (of substantial height i.e. H/D >> 1) could be at least as low as that of a rectangular
section as assumed in the Standard--at least in the along-wind direction (the cross-wind load may be much
larger than is given by the Standard, but this result would of course be a part of the wind tunnel study).
Put a domed top on the circular cylinder, and the loads may decrease even more. However, the committee
determined that SOME absolute lower limit was needed, and that 0.5 was a reasonable value for MWFRS.

116 Part VII - Wind Tunnel Testing

Significant Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10