WIND LOADING EFFECTS AND EQUIVALENT STATIC

WIND LOADING EFFECTS AND EQUIVALENT STATIC
WIND LOADING ON LOW-RISE BUILDINGS
by
XIAOHONG HU, M.S.
A DISSERTATION
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Douglas A. Smith, PH.D.

Chairperson of the Committee
Kishor C. Mehta, PH.D.
Chris W. Letchford, PH.D.
Xinzhong Chen, PH.D.
Kathleen Gilliam, PH.D.
Accepted
John Borrelli
Dean of the Graduate School
May, 2006
Copyright 2006, Xiaohong Hu
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to acknowledge many people for helping me during my doctoral work. I
would especially like to thank my advisor, Dr. Smith, for his long time support and
encouragement. He always makes me feel better when I am nervous. I can still
remember what he said to me before my qualify exam, he said that he and all the
committee members are on my side to help finish my dissertation research, not to
embarrass me. He is a really nice teacher and if one day, I have the chance to be a
teacher, I would like to be a teacher like him.
Throughout my doctoral work Dr. Chen spend a lot of time to discuss with me about
my dissertation research; and I can always benefit from talk with him; from his papers,
I learned a lot of things, and his help makes my dissertation going more smoothly.
I am also very grateful for having an exceptional doctoral committee and wish to
thank Dr. Mehta, Dr. Letchford, and Dr. Gilliam. Although I didn’t talk with them
about my dissertation a lot, I once took their classes and from their classes, I learned a
lot of knowledge necessary to an engineer and I also learned the responsibility
involved to be a good engineer.
I extend many thanks to my colleagues and friends, especially Anjing Bi, Hua He,
Guoqing Huang, Dejiang Chen. They give me a lot of help in my study and life.
Finally, I'd like to thank my family. I'm grateful to my mother and my brother for their
encouragement and enthusiasm. I'm especially grateful to my husband, Rujin Ma and
my best friends, Qingfu Wang, Huaixin Zhang, Kunyu Li, Jian Dai, and Dian Wang
for their patience and for helping me keep my life in proper perspective and balance.
This research was funded by NIST and I would like to thank TTU for giving the
opportunity to study here and to see a country quite different from my own country
but as lovely as my country. And I also would like to thank Dr. Tamura for the data he
provided.
Xiaohong Hu
March 28, 2006
— I —
ABSTRACT
Wind-induced pressures acting on the Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory

(WERFL) of Texas Tech University are integrated over each surface to obtain three
forces and moments at the base of the building along the three principal axes with its
origin at the geometric center of the building. Mean and fluctuating pressure
distributions around the WERFL building are investigated, and the pressure
distributions producing maximum fluctuating along-wind loading, across-wind
loading, and torsional moment are studied, and the correlation between these forces is
studied, a method to investigate the load combination of these forces is proposed.
WERFL building is also used for estimation of wind loading effects and
corresponding gust response factors and background factors, and a wind tunnel model
of Tokyo Polytechnic University is also utilized. The gust factors and back ground
factors of responses of these two buildings under wind loading are calculated
respectively. The responses calculated by pressure time histories are compared to
those calculated by applying ASCE7-05. Methods to investigate universal equivalent
static wind load are applied to both buildings. Several equivalent static wind loading
(ESWL) methods are compared, and the universal ESWL method is applied to
WERFL building and another modified universal ESWL method is also utilized for
WERFL building.
— II —
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I
ABSTRACT II
LIST OF TABLES V
LIST OF FIGURES X
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction with an Objective and Scope 1

1.1.1 Objective 2
1.1.2 Scope 2
1.2 Introduction 3
1.3 Wind Loads on Low-rise Building 6
1.4 Wind Loads on Tall Building 14
1.4.1 DGLF approach 16
1.4.2 MGLF approach 20
1.4.3 DRF approach 24
1.4.4 Linear Combination of Background and Resonant Equivalent Static
Wind Loads 25
1.4.5 Across-wind and torsional wind loading 28
Reference 31
II INTEGRATED WIND LOADS ON A FULL-SCALE LOW-RISE

BUILDING 35
2.1 Introduction 35
2.2 Instantaneous Wind Pressure Distribution Causing Maximum Quasi-Steady
Load Effects 36
2.2.1 Quasi-static base shear and torsional base moment 36
2.2.2 Correlation between the wind loads 39
2.2.3 Relationship between torsional moment and other forces 40
2.3 Wind induced internal stresses in structure members 41
2.4 Comparison to responses calculated by ASCE 43
2.4.1 ASCE (Figure 6-9) 43
2.4.2 ASCE (Figure 6-10) 43
2.5 Derivation of the wind load combination 44
2.6 Application of the Derived Equivalent Static Wind Loads to the Assumed
Frame System 47
2.7 Conclusion Remarks 49
Reference 49
— III —
III WIND INDUCED RESPONSES OF LOW-RISE BUILDING 72
3.1 Introduction 72
3.2 WERFL Building (Full scale building) 72
3.2.1 Gust Response Factors 73
3.2.2 Comparison to responses calculated by ASCE 75
3.2.3 Background Factors 76
3.3 Wind Tunnel Model in Tokyo Polytechnic University 78
3.3.1 Gust Factors 78
3.3.2 Background Factors 79
3.4 Background Factors Based on Four Gust Loading Envelops of WERFL
Building 80
3.5 Concluding remarks 82
Reference 82
IV EQUIVALENT STATIC WIND LOAD 130
4.1 Introduction 130

4.2 LRC pressure distribution of WERFL building 131
4.3 Universal Equivalent Static Wind Load 133
4.3.1 Application of Universal ESWL to WERFL building 136
4.3.2 Modified Universal Equivalent Static Wind Load 140
4.4 Concluding remarks 144
Reference 145
V SUMMARY, CONTRIBUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 179
5.1 Summary 179

5.2 Contributions 180
5.3 Recommendations for future research 181
APPENDIX I-PART I: WERFL BUILDING 183
APPENDIX I-PART II: TAMURA WIND MODEL 199
APPENDIX II 211
— IV —
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Mean and standard deviation of the along-wind, across-wind and

torsional moment coefficients (AOA around 0º) 51
2.2 Maximum fluctuating along-wind, across-wind coefficients, torsional
moment coefficients, as well as lift force coefficient and their
corresponding another three force coefficients (AOA round 0º) 52
2.2 (continued) 53
2.3 Mean and standard deviation of the along-wind, across-wind and
torsional moment coefficients (AOA around 90º) 54
2.4 Maximum fluctuating along-wind, across-wind coefficients, torsional
moment coefficients, as well as lift force coefficient and their
corresponding another three force coefficients (AOA around 90º) 54
2.4 (continued) 55
2.5 The torsion coefficient of the four walls when AOA is close to zero 55
2.6 The torsion coefficient of the four walls when AOA is close to zero 56
2.7 Covariance of torsion coefficients of the four walls with along-wind
load (AOA around 0º) 57
2.8 The covariance of torsion coefficients of the four walls with across-
wind load (AOA around 0º) 57
2.9 The covariance of torsion coefficients of the four walls with along-
wind and across-wind load (AOA around 0º) 58
2.10 Influence coefficients 58
2.11 Peak normal stresses in column C1 (AOA close to zero) 59
2.12 Peak normal stresses in column C3 (AOA close to zero) 59
2.13 Peak fluctuating normal stresses in column C1 (AOA close to zero) 59
2.14 Peak fluctuating normal stresses in column C3 (AOA close to zero) 59
2.15 Comparison of actual response of normal stresses by ASCE(Fig.6-9) 60
2.16 Comparison of actual response of normal stresses by ASCE(Fig.6-10) 60
2.17 Correlation coefficients between along-wind load Fx, across-wind
load Fy, and torsional moment Mz (AOA around 0º) 60
2.18 rms value of the along-wind, across-wind and torsional moment
(AOA around 0º) 61
2.19 Mean value of the along-wind, across-wind and torsional moment
(AOA around 0º) 61
3.1 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response
Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame A, (AOA=0º) 83
Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame B, (AOA=0º) 83
3.3 Mean, Maximum Responses and Gust Response Factors of Critical
Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame C, (AOA=0º) 84
Factor of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame D, (AOA=0º) 84
Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame A, (AOA=90º) 85
Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame B, (AOA=90º) 85
Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame C, (AOA=90º) 86
— V —
Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame D, (AOA=90º) 86
3.9 Comparison between responses of Frame C calculated from ASCE
(Figure 6-9) with actual responses 87
3.10 Comparison between responses calculated from ASCE and actual
responses 87
3.11 Dynamic Responses and Dynamic Response Factors of Critical
Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame A, (AOA=0º) 88
Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame B, (AOA=0º) 88
Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame D, (AOA=0º) 89
Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame A, (AOA=90º) 90
Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame B, (AOA=90º) 90
Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame D, (AOA=90º) 91
3.19 Dynamic Responses of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B C D,
(AOA=0º) 92
3.20 Dynamic Responses of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B C D,
(AOA=90º) 93
3.21 Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B
C D, (AOA=0º) 94
3.22 Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B
C D, (AOA=90º) 95
Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame A (AOA=0º) 96
Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame B (AOA=0º) 97
Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame C (AOA=0º) 98
Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame A (AOA=0º) 99
Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame B (AOA=0º) 100
Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame C (AOA=0º) 101
3.29 Dynamic Responses and background factors of Critical Section
1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame A (AOA=0º) 102
1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame B(AOA=0º) 103
1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame C(AOA=0º) 104
1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame A (AOA=0º) 105
— VI —
1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame B (AOA=0º) 106
1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame C (AOA=0º) 107
3.35 Maximum Responses of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B C D
under four gust loading envelopes, (AOA=0º) 108
3.36 Maximum Responses of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B C D
under four gust loading envelopes, (AOA=90º) 109
3.37 Background factor based on four gust loading envelopes, (AOA=0º) 110
3.38 Background factor based on four gust loading envelopes, (AOA=90º) 111
4.1 Combination coefficients and contribution factor (AOA=0º) 147
4.7 Combination coefficients and contribution coefficients (AOA=0º) 149
4.8 Combination coefficients and contribution coefficients (AOA=90º) 149
I-I-1 Mean response of Frame A (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º) 183
I-I-2 Absolute maximum total response of Frame A (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º) 183
I-I-3 Absolute maximum dynamic response of Across A (lb, lb-ft)
(AOA=0º) 183
I-I-4 Dynamic Responses under Absolute Maximum Fluctuating Pressure
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame A (AOA=0º) 184
I-I-5 Gust Factor, Frame A (AOA=0º) 184
I-I-6 Background Factor, Frame A (AOA=0º) 184
I-I-7 Mean response of Frame B (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º) 185
I-I-8 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across B (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º) 185
I-I-9 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across B (lb, lb-ft)
(AOA=0º) 185
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame B (AOA=0º) 186
I-I-11 Gust Factor, Frame B (AOA=0º) 186
I-I-12 Background Factor, Frame B (AOA=0º) 186
I-I-13 Mean response of Frame C (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º) 187
I-I-14 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across C (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º) 187
I-I-15 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across C (lb, lb-ft)
(AOA=0º) 187
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame C (AOA=0º) 188
I-I-17 Gust Factor, Frame C (AOA=0º) 188
I-I-18 Background Factor, Frame C (AOA=0º) 188
I-I-19 Mean response of Across D (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º) 189
I-I-20 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across D (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º) 189
I-I-21 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across D (lb, lb-ft)
(AOA=0º) 189
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame D (AOA=0º) 190
I-I-23 Gust Factor, Frame D (AOA=0º) 190
I-I-24 Background Factor, Frame D (AOA=0º) 190
— VII —
I-I-25 Mean response of Across A (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º) 191
I-I-26 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across A (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
191
I-I-27 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across A (lb, lb-ft)
(AOA=90º) 191
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame A (AOA=90º) 192
I-I-29 Gust Factor, Frame A (AOA=90º) 192
I-I-30 Background Factor, Frame A (AOA=90º) 192
I-I-31 Mean response of Across B (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º) 193
I-I-32 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across B (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
193
I-I-33 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across B (lb, lb-ft)
(AOA=90º) 193
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame B (AOA=90º) 194
I-I-35 Gust Factor, Frame B (AOA=90º) 194
I-I-36 Background Factor, Frame B (AOA=90º) 194
I-I-37 Mean response of Across C (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º) 195
I-I-38 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across C (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
195
I-I-39 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across C (lb, lb-ft)
(AOA=90º) 195
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame C (AOA=90º) 196
I-I-41 Gust Factor, Frame C (AOA=90º 196
I-I-42 Background Factor, Frame C (AOA=90º) 196
I-I-43 Mean response of Across D (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º) 197
I-I-44 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across D (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
197
I-I-45 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across D (lb, lb-ft)
(AOA=90º) 197
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame D (AOA=90º) 198
I-I-47 Gust Factor, Frame D (AOA=90º) 198
I-I-48 Background Factor, Frame D (AOA=90º) 198
I-II-1 Mean response of Across A (KN, KN-m) 199
I-II-2 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across A (KN, KN-m) 199
I-II-3 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across A (KN, KN-m) 199
I-II-4 Dynamic Responses under Absolute Maximum Fluctuating Pressure
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Across Frame A (KN,
KN-m) 200
I-II-5 Gust Factor, Across Frame A 200
I-II-6 Background Factor, Across Frame A 200
I-II-7 Mean response of Across B (KN, KN-m) 201
I-II-8 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across B (KN, KN-m) 201
I-II-9 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across B (KN, KN-m) 201
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Across Frame B (KN,
KN-m) 202
— VIII —
I-II-11 Gust Factor, Across Frame B 202
I-II-12 Background Factor, Across Frame B 202
I-II-13 Mean response of Across C (KN, KN-m) 203
I-II-14 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across C (KN, KN-m) 203
I-II-15 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across C (KN, KN-m) 203
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Across Frame C (KN,
KN-m) 204
I-II-17 Gust Factor, Across Frame C 204
I-II-18 Background Factor, Across Frame C 204
I-II-19 Mean response of Along A (KN, KN-m) 205
I-II-20 Absolute Maximum Total response of Along A (KN,KN-m) 205
I-II-21 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Along A (KN,KN-m) 205
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Along Frame A (KN, KN-
m) 206
I-II-23 Gust Factor, Along Frame A 206
I-II-24 Background Factor, Along Frame A 206
I-II-25 Mean response of Along B (KN, KN-m) 207
I-II-26 Absolute Maximum Total response of Along B (KN, KN-m) 207
I-II-27 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Along B (KN, KN-m) 207
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Along Frame B (KN, KN-
m) 208
I-II-29 Gust Factor, Along Frame B 208
I-II-30 Background Factor, Along Frame B 208
I-II-31 Mean response of Along C (KN, KN-M) 209
I-II-32 Absolute Maximum Total response of Along C (KN, KN-M) 209
I-II-33 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Along C (KN, KN-M) 209
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Along Frame C (KN, KN-
m) 210
I-II-35 Gust Factor, Along Frame C 210
I-II-36 Background Factor, Along Frame C 210
— IX —
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Examples of instantaneous pressure distributions causing maximum

wind force coefficients 12
1.2 Cross-correlation coefficients between wind forces 13
1.3 Cross-correlation coefficients between absolute wind forces 13
1.4. Probablistic dynamic-based approaches to gust loading 22
2.1 WERFL building of Texas Tech University 62
2.2 Pressure Tap Arrangement of WERFL Building 62
2.3 Mean pressure distribution at three pressure tap layers (AOA=0.1296º)
63
2.4 Fluctuating pressure distribution at three pressure tap layers
(AOA=0.1296º) 63
2.5 Instantaneous wall pressure distributions causing maximum
fluctuating quasi-static along-wind base shear FDmax at three
pressure tap layers (AOA=0.1296º) 63
fluctuating quasi-static across-wind base shear FLmax at three
pressure tap layers (AOA=0.1296º) 63
fluctuating quasi-steady base moment MTmax at three pressure tap
layers (AOA=0.1296º) 64
fluctuating quasi-steady Lift Force at three pressure tap layers
(AOA=0.1296º) 64
2.9 Ensemble averaged mean wind pressure distributions at three
pressure tap layers (AOA around 0º) 64
2.10 Ensemble averaged fluctuating wind pressure distributions at three
2.11 Ensemble averaged extreme fluctuating wind pressure distributions
causing maximum quasi-static along-wind base shear at three
causing maximum quasi-static across-wind base shear at three
causing maximum quasi-static torsional base moment at three
causing maximum quasi-static lift force at three pressure tap layers
(AOA around 0º) 65
2.15 Ensemble averaged mean wind pressure distributions at three
2.16 Ensemble averaged fluctuating wind pressure distributions at three
causing maximum quasi-static along-wind base shear at three
— X —
causing maximum quasi-static across-wind base shear at three
causing maximum quasi-static torsional moment at three pressure tap
layers (AOA around 90º) 67
causing maximum quasi-static lift force at three pressure tap layers
(AOA around 90º) 67
2.21 The relationship between the maximum along-wind base shear CX
and its simultaneously recorded across-wind base shear ratio CY/
CYmax and torsional base moment ratio CT/CTmax, CZ/CZmax (AOA=0º). 67
2.22 The relationship between the maximum across-wind base shear CY
and its simultaneously recorded along-wind base shear ratio CX/CXmax
and torsional base moment ratio CT/CTmax, CZ/CZmax (AOA=0º). 67
2.23 The relationship between the maximum torsional base moment CT
and across-wind base shear ratio CY/CYmax, CZ/CZmax (AOA=0º). 68
2.24 The relationship between the maximum torsional base moment CZ
and across-wind base shear ratio CY/CYmax, CT/CTmax (AOA=0º). 68
2.25 The relationship between the maximum along-wind base shear CY
and its simultaneously recorded across-wind base shear ratio
CX/CXmax and torsional base moment ratio CT/CTmax,
CZ/CZmax.(AOA=90º) 68
2.26 The relationship between the maximum across-wind base shear CX
and its simultaneously recorded along-wind base shear ratio CY/CYmax
and torsional base moment ratio CT/CTmax, CZ/CZmax.(AOA=90º) 68
2.27 The relationship between the maximum torsional base moment CT
and across-wind base shear ratio CX/CXmax, CZ/CZmax.(AOA=90º) 69
2.28 The relationship between the maximum torsional base moment CZ
and across-wind base shear ratio CX/CXmax, CT/CTmax.(AOA=90º) 69
2.29a Cross-correlation coefficients between wind forces (AOA= 0.1297º) 69
2.29b Cross-correlation coefficients between wind forces (AOA= 0.1297º) 69
2.30a Cross-correlation coefficients between wind forces (AOA= 85.4797º) 70
2.30b Cross-correlation coefficients between wind forces (AOA= 85.4797º) 70
2.31 Ensemble averaged extreme wind pressure distributions causing
maximum quasi-static load effects at the base 70
2.32(a) Full design wind pressure of CASE1 of ASCE(Figure 6-9) 70
2.32(b) Full design wind pressure of CASE1 of ASCE(Figure 6-9) 71
2.33 Pressure distribution based on ASCE7 (Figure 6-10) for calculation 71
2.34 Frame model 71
2.35 Columns of the frame model 71
3.1 Frame System for WERFL Building 112
3.2 Critical Sections for Frames 112
3.3 Pressure Tap Arrangement 113
3.4 Frame Arrangement of Wind Tunnel Model 114
3.5 Pressure distribution base on ASCE 114
— XI —
3.6(a) Pressure distribution on Frame A based on ASCE 115
3.6(b) Pressure distribution on Frame B based on ASCE 115
3.6(c) Pressure distribution on Frame C based on ASCE 115
3.6(d) Pressure distribution on Frame D based on ASCE 115
3.7 Gust Loading Envelope Distribution Based on first POD mode on
Frame A at AOA=0º 116
Frame B at AOA=0º 116
Frame C at AOA=0º 116
Frame D at AOA=0º 117
Frame A at AOA=90º 117
Frame B at AOA=90º 117
Frame C at AOA=90º 118
Frame D at AOA=90º 118
3.15 Gust Loading Envelope 1 Distribution on Frame A at AOA=0º 118
3.19 Gust Loading Envelope 1 Distribution on Frame B at AOA=0º 120
3.23 Gust Loading Envelope 1 Distribution on Frame C at AOA=0º 121
3.27 Gust Loading Envelope 1 Distribution on Frame D at AOA=0º 122
— XII —
4.1 Mean Pressure Distribution on Frame B (AOA=0º) 150
4.2 ESWL pressure distribution based on Conditional Sampling on
Frame B at critical section 3 causing maximum bending moment with
support condition fix-fix (AOA=0º) 150
4.3 ESWL pressure distribution based on LRC on Frame B at critical
section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support condition
fix-fix (AOA=0º) 150
4.4 ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE on Frame B at critical
4.5 Mean Pressure Distribution on Frame C (AOA=0º) 151
Frame C at critical section 3 causing maximum bending moment with
4.7 ESWL pressure distribution based on LRC on Frame C at critical
4.8 ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE on Frame C at critical
4.9 Mean Pressure Distribution on Frame B (AOA=90º) 152
Frame B at critical section 3 causing maximum bending moment with
4.11 ESWL pressure distribution based on LRC on Frame B at critical
4.12 ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE on Frame B at critical
4.13 Mean Pressure Distribution on Frame C (AOA=90º) 153
Frame C at critical section 3 causing maximum bending moment with
4.15 ESWL pressure distribution based on LRC on Frame C at critical
4.16 ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE on Frame C at critical
4.17 The relationship between the contribution coefficients and mode
number at AOA=0º 154
4.18 The relationship between the contribution coefficients and mode
number at AOA=90º 154
4.19 Universal ESWL distribution reproducing maximum axial force N
(AOA=0º, mode number=5) 155
4.20 Universal ESWL distribution reproducing maximum shear force Q
— XIII —
4.21 Universal ESWL distribution reproducing maximum bending
moment M (AOA=0º, mode number=5) 156
4.22 Universal ESWL distribution reproducing all maximum load effects
simultaneously (AOA=0º, mode number=5) 156
4.23 Comparison of Actual Maximum Axial Forces and Axial Forces
under Universal ESWL (AOA=0º, mode number=5) 157
4.24 Comparison of Actual Maximum Shear Forces and Shear Forces
4.25 Comparison of Actual Maximum Bending Moments and Bending
Moments under Universal ESWL (AOA=0º, mode number=5) 157
4.26 Comparison of Actual Maximum Responses and Responses under
Universal ESWL (AOA=0º, mode number=5) 157
— XIV —
4.67 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum axial
force N (AOA=0º) 173
4.68 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum shear
force Q (AOA=0º) 173
4.69 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum
bending moment M (AOA=0º) 174
4.70 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing all the
maximum internal forces N,Q,M (AOA=0º) 174
— XV —
under Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=0º) 175
Moments under Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=0º) 175
Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=0º) 175
4.75 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum axial
force N (AOA=90º) 176
4.76 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum shear
force Q (AOA=90º) 176
4.77 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum
bending moment M (AOA=90º) 177
4.78 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing all the
maximum internal forces N,Q,M (AOA=90º) 177
Moments under Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=90º) 178
Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=90º) 178
II-1 Pressure distribution on Frame A for Universal ESWL reproducing
maximum axial forces N (mode=5, AOA=0º) 211
II-2 Pressure distribution on Frame B for Universal ESWL reproducing
II-3 Pressure distribution on Frame C for Universal ESWL reproducing
II-4 Pressure distribution on Frame D for Universal ESWL reproducing
maximum shear forces Q (mode=5, AOA=0º) 212
maximum bending moment M (mode=5, AOA=0º) 213
all the maximum responses NQM (mode=5, AOA=0º) 214
— XVI —
— XVII —
— XVIII —
— XIX —
maximum axial forces N based on LRC method (AOA=0º) 235
maximum shear forces Q based on LRC method (AOA=0º) 236
maximum bending moment M based on LRC method (AOA=0º) 237
all the maximum responses NQM based on LRC method (AOA=0º) 238
— XX —
— XXI —
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction with an Objective and Scope
Every year, a lot of buildings are damaged due to hurricane, tornado and some other
wind loadings. In structural design, buildings are under many kinds of loading, such
as dead load, live load, snow load and so on. Besides these loads, wind loading is also
a critical loading needed to be considered. Wind loading is complicated due to several
factors, such as the surrounding category, environment, climate and other factors;
wind loading of low-rise building is even more complicated than wind loading of
high-rise building, since most low-rise buildings are immersed within the
aerodynamic roughness on earth’s surface, for them, interference and shelter effects
are also important for wind loads assessment but hard to quantify, and the wind
loading on roof is also needed to be considered, the internal pressure may also be
significant.
How to obtain wind loading of low-rise buildings has long been the question in wind
engineering. And many engineers have put a lot of effort into solving this question. In
the past years, several methods have been developed such as computational wind
engineering method, full scale experiment and wind tunnel test to obtain pressure
information around a building. Based on these pressure information, database assisted
design and equivalent static wind loading(ESWL) methods can be used to establish
wind loading for structural design.
The focus of this dissertation is equivalent static wind loading (ESWL). This
dissertation aims to give a clear understanding of wind induced loading of buildings,
and will focus on wind loading of low-rise buildings. Several methods for
investigation of equivalent static wind load are studied to give a clarified overall
review and their limitations are pointed out.
To investigate wind loading on low-rise buildings, it is necessary to have some idea

about wind pressure distribution characteristics around the building, and the
correlation between wind loadings in different directions is also worthwhile to be
studied. The wind loading correlation is a basic step to investigate wind loading
combination, for low-rise building, wind loading combination is also a topic needed to
— 1 —
be considered. Equivalent static wind loading(ESWL) is a mainly method to establish
wind loading, so it is also important for wind engineers to investigate convenient and
accurate ESWL method, in this dissertation, several ESWL methods are applied to
low-rise building, their disadvantages are pointed out and some new concept of
universal ESWL is proposed, and corresponding methods are studied. Based on what
have been discussed above, the objectives and scope are stated as follows.
1.1.1 Objective
The main objectives of the thesis are,
(1) to give a view of pressure distributions characteristics around low-rise building;

(2) to investigate the mechanism of wind induced torque and its correlation with
along-wind and across-wind loads;
(3) to investigate the critical wind loads combination of wind induced torque and
other loads such as along wind and across wind loads for low rise buildings;
(4) to investigate wind induced responses in low-rise buildings;
(5) to compare several equivalent static wind load methods;
(6) to propose a new equivalent static wind load method.
1.1.2 Scope
Wind-induced pressures acting on the Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory

(WERFL) building of Texas Tech University are integrated over each surface to
obtain three forces and moments at the base of the building along the three principal
axes with its origin at the geometric center of the base of the WERFL building. Mean
and fluctuating pressure distributions around the WERFL building are investigated,
and the pressure distributions producing maximum fluctuating along-wind, across-
wind, and torsional moment at the base of the building are studied, and the correlation
between these forces is studied, a method to investigate the load combination of these
forces is proposed.
Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory (WERFL) of Texas Tech University is

also used for estimation of wind loading effects and corresponding gust response
factors and some other factors, and a wind tunnel model of Tokyo Polytechnic
University is also utilized. The gust factors of responses of these two buildings under
wind loading are calculated respectively. Methods to investigate universal equivalent
static wind load are applied to both buildings. Several equivalent static wind loading
— 2 —
(ESWL) methods are compared, and the universal ESWL method is applied to
WERFL building and another modified universal ESWL method is also utilized for
WERFL building.
1.2 Introduction
Buildings immersed in the wind field will be subject to complicated wind loads. For a
long time, wind loads acting on buildings have been the research focus for wind
engineers. Wind induced loads are very complex and will be influenced by many
factors such as the environments where the structures locate, the geometry of
structures etc.
For wind engineering structural design, majority buildings belong to low-rise rigid
buildings. Wind loading is one of the most sophisticated requirements in building
design; and their effect on low-rise buildings is also a major concern of building
design. Accurate estimates of wind loading effect are very important and will directly
leads to reduction of wind induced damage.
Many researches have been done on wind induced effects, and several techniques
have been developed to improve the progress of wind engineering.
Utilization of manifolds and development of the well-known pneumatic averaging

technique by Surry and Stathopoulos (Surry, 1977/78) contribute a lot to physical
modeling in wind tunnel. Besides wind tunnel tests, full-scale studies of wind loads on
low-rise buildings were also been carried out. Considerable developments in
electronic instrumentation and computer based statistical analysis techniques
contributed a lot to full-scale experiments, and the full-scale studies provided a vast
body of data which challenged wind tunnel modeling techniques.
Wind tunnel and field experimentation are the traditional approaches for the
investigation of wind-induced pressure fluctuations and time histories. However, the
collection of long time histories of wind and pressure data might be time consuming
and laborious, considering the inherent variability in such time histories affected by
building geometry, measurement location, surroundings and other factors. But
computer simulation using probabilistic and statistical models can efficiently solve
those complicated factors. Generally speaking, in computer simulation, techniques
which can be used to simulate Gaussian and Non-Gaussian are divided into two
groups, that is, Faster Fourier Transformation (FFT) and Auto Regressive Moving
— 3 —
Average (ARMA) (Stathopoulos, 2003). And a new technique by combining Fourier
transformation, autoregressive model with non-Gaussian input process and phase
transformation of Fourier coefficients in Fourier representation of time series has been
proposed by Seong and Peterka (Seong, 1993). Computation simulation is very
successful in generating limitless amount of data and pressure coefficient time
histories generated from direct wind tunnel experiments or via computer simulation
can be reconstituted as full-scale pressure time histories for any full-scale wind speed.
It should be noted that this computer simulation can be used in combination with the
wind tunnel generated pressure coefficient databases for purposes of interpolation
between different building geometries and exposures.
Besides these techniques discussed above, Computational Wind Engineering (CWE)

deals with the application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methodologies,
typically numerical solutions of Navier–Stokes equations using appropriate turbulence
models into wind engineering problems. At the present time, the application of CFD
into wind engineering is limited mainly due to difficulties related to the specific
features of atmospheric boundary layer flow and structures of wind engineering
interest, such as high turbulence, high Reynolds number, 3D flow field, bluff bodies
and associated flow separation and vortex shedding. Although it has tremendous
potential for engineering use, CWE still has a long way to go to become truly useful
to the design practitioner. However, for applications to which mean wind flows and
pressures may be important, CWE can be used because of its reduced time and cost, at
least for preliminary design purposes.
All the methods mentioned above are aimed to obtain pressure data and information,
after enough pressure data are obtained, they can be used to establish wind loading for
design. And all these data are basic resources that are utilized for the formation of
most codes and standards.
In structural design, for most buildings and structures, standards and codes provide
wind loading to use. For buildings which are not included in contemporary wind
codes and standards, database-assisted design can be utilized. The concept of
database-assisted design was proposed by Simiu and Stathopoulos(Simiu, 1997) and
Whalen et al.(Whalen, 1998) as a means of providing future code alternatives that
would make direct use of stored pressure time series for the design of low buildings.
The idea is not really new but the development of electronically scanned pressure
— 4 —
measurements and increased information storage and computational capacities make it
now possible.
Besides database assisted method, equivalent static wind loading is another method to
establish wind loading. In wind engineering practice, wind induced loading is usually
represented by equivalent static wind loading. Taking advantage of the spectral
descriptions of wind loads and their effects on buildings, separation of the dynamic
response (excluding the mean component) and the associated ESWL into background
(quasi-static) and resonant components provides a more efficient response prediction
framework and a physically more meaningful description of loading.
Several methods are developed to establish equivalent static wind loading(ESWL).

Kasperski and Niemann once proposed the correlation based LRC (Load-Response
Correlation) method (Kasperski, 1992), which provides a sound theoretical basis for
estimating the expected equivalent static load distributions for the background
fluctuating wind loads. The extreme pressure distributions causing maximum
responses can be computed from Kasperski’s LRC formula. It should be noted that
LRC pressure distribution depends on influence functions of the response considered.
Different responses have different corresponding LRC pressure distributions.
Holmes also proposed some expressions for equivalent static wind load distributions,
all possible combinations of mean, background and resonant response are given
(Holmes, 2002). In his paper, structures for which the responses to wind can be
considered as quasi-static, and those for which resonant responses are significant are
considered.
Based on the characteristics of wind induced responses, wind loads on buildings can
be studied by being categorized as wind loads on low-rise buildings and high-rise
buildings respectively. A detail description of wind loading on low-rise building and
high-rise building will be given below although high-rise building is not the focus of
this dissertation, there are similarities existing between the methods to investigate
wind loading of low and high rise buildings, to make a comprehensive view of wind
loading, it is still necessary to pay some attention to wind loading on high-rise
building.
— 5 —
1.3 Wind Loads on Low-rise Building
Several factors will make the estimation of wind loads for low-rise buildings as
complicated as that for tall buildings. First, usually low-rise buildings are immersed
within the aerodynamic roughness on earth’s surface, where the turbulence intensities
are rather high, and interference and shelter effects are also important for wind loads
assessment but hard to quantify; second, roof loadings of low-rise buildings are
variable due to different geometries, and are critical for the design of low-rise
buildings because many structural failures are initiated by great suctions on the roof;
thirdly, low-rise buildings usually have a single internal space, the internal pressures
can be significant, and the magnitude of internal pressure peaks, and their correlation
with external pressure peaks needs to be assessed.
A very useful and direct method which can be used to investigate wind loads on low-
rise buildings is wind tunnel test. Two earliest investigations were carried out by
Irminger in Copenhagen, Denmark, and Kernot in Melbourne, Australia. Over the
following years, many wind tunnel tests have been carried out by scholars all around
the world. It was until the 1950s that Jensen, at Technical University of Denmark,
explained the differences between full-scale and wind tunnel model measurements of
wind pressures. The work of Jensen and Franck was the precursor to a series of
extensive wind studies of wind loads on low-rise buildings in the 1970s and 1980s.
Besides wind tunnel tests, full-scale studies of wind loads on low-rise buildings were
also been carried out. Considerable developments in electronic instrumentation and
computer based statistical analysis techniques contributed a lot to full-scale
experiments, and the full-scale studies provided a vast body of data which challenged
wind tunnel modeling techniques.
For engineering practice, wind loads of low-rise buildings usually are expressed in the
form of equivalent or effective static wind loads. Equivalent static wind load
distributions are those loadings that produce the correct expected values of peak load
effects, such as the bending moments, or deflections, induced by fluctuating wind
loading.
Consequently a simplified approach to analyze the dynamic response induced by wind

was introduced, which involves the concept of gust loading factor (Davenport, 1967).
This method is first used for high-rise building, and it enables the estimation of a
— 6 —
single factor, which can be applied to a calculated mean wind response, such as base
bending moment of tall buildings and allows the maximum load effects in a certain
time interval to be estimated. This approach takes both quasi-steady or background
and resonant dynamic effects into consideration. However a limitation is
automatically involved in this method, because it implies that the effective static load
distribution corresponding to the maximum structural response has the same shape as
the mean wind load distribution. For small structures, this assumption is valid, and
often gives results acceptable for the order of accuracy expected in a wind loading
standard. However in some cases, this assumption will be very misleading for
structures with complicated influence lines.
Another approach to investigate the equivalent static load distribution is to use a

conditional sampling, in which the time histories of wind pressures are searched to
identify the instantaneous pressure distribution when peak load response appears. This
direct method was once used by several wind laboratories for commercial wind-tunnel
studies of wind loads on large roofs and other structures.
Kasperski and Niemann (Kasperski, 1992) proposed the correlation based LRC
method, which provides a sound theoretical basis for estimating the expected
equivalent static load distributions for the background fluctuating wind loads. Tamura
also proved the validity of LRC method (Tamura, 2001, 2003).
For low-rise buildings, when the resonant response is negligible, the LRC method can
be used to determine the equivalent static load distributions from mean and
background components. The LRC method gives an expected load distribution
corresponding to a particular load response r, with influence coefficient I r (z ) , which
means the value of r when a unit load is applied at position z. A single position
variable z is used to demonstrate this method, but this method can be easily extended
to two or three dimensions. A detailed explanation of this method is given below.
The instantaneous value of r can be expressed as

L
r (t ) = ∫ p ( z , t ) I r ( z )dz (1.1)
0
where p ( z , t ) is the fluctuating pressure at z, and L is the length of the structure,

I r (z ) is the influence coefficient.
— 7 —
The mean response of r(t) is
L
r = ∫ p ( z , t ) I r ( z )dz (1.2)
0
where p ( z , t ) is the mean pressure at z
The standard deviation of r, σ r , B , is given by
L L
σ r ,B = (∫ ∫ p ' ( z1 , t ) p ' ( z 2 , t )I r ( z1 ) I r ( z 2 )dz1 dz 2 )1 / 2 (1.3)
0 0
where, the subscript of B represents background response, the superscript indicates a

fluctuating quantity with mean value subtracted, p ' ( z , t ) represents the fluctuating
pressure at z.
So the expected maximum response r will be expressed as
rˆ = r + g Bσ r , B (1.4)
Where g B is the background peak factor, generally taken as 3.5.
Correspondingly, the LRC formula for pressure distribution is as follows
[ p ( z )] r = p ( z ) + g B ρ pr ( z )σ p ( z ) (1.5)
g B ρ pr ( z )σ p ( z ) ρ pr (z )
where, is pressure distribution for background response. is the
' '
correlation coefficient between p ( z , t ) and r (t ) , which is given by:
L L
p ' ( z , t ) ∫ p ' ( z1 , t ) I r ( z1 )dz1 ∫ p ( z, t ) p ( z , t )I
' '
1 r ( z1 )dz1
ρ pr ( z ) = 0
= 0
(1.6)
σ p ( z )σ r , B σ p ( z )σ r , B
σ r ,B σ p (z )
where is given by equation (1.3), is the standard deviation of pressure at
position z.
Generally, the fluctuating pressures are measured by wind tunnel tests or full-scale
'
measurements, so p ( z , t ) can’t be expressed as continuous function, for a structure
surface divided into discrete panels, equation (1.6) can be put in another form as
follows:
— 8 —
N
∑ p (t ) p
'
i
'
j (t )β i
ρ pj ,r = i =1
(1.7)
σ pjσ r , B
σ r ,B
In this case can be expressed as
N N
σ r , B = (∑∑ pi' (t ) p 'j (t )β i β j )1 / 2 (1.8)
i =1 j =1
where i and j represent panel or tap number, and N is the total number of measure
βj
channels. p ' j represents the fluctuating pressure at panel j or tap j; is the influence
coefficient of panel j on the load effect r, and incorporates the area of the panel or tap,
βj
which means that is the value of r when a uniformly distributed patch load of unit
magnitude is applied to the panel. So the background equivalent static load
distribution is expressed as:
N
∑ p (t ) p '
i
'
j (t )β i
p B , j = g B ρ pj σ pj = g B N N
i =1
(1.9)
(∑∑ p (t ) p (t )β i β j )
'
i
'
j
1/ 2
i =1 j =1
It should be noted that LRC method provides an expected distribution for background
or quasi-static fluctuating loading. Distributions obtained directly by conditional
sampling of pressure distribution which produce the peak load effect, will converge to
that given by the LRC formula, when ensemble-averaged over a large number of
samples. LRC can’t take resonant response into consideration. And from the
procedure of LRC method, it can be easily seen that for each different response, the
LRC pressure distribution will be different, which limits the application of LRC
method.
All the above methods discussed above are mainly focused on along-wind loading.
For across-wind loading and torsional moment, until now, almost no theoretical
analysis has been done on the estimation of wind loading in these two directions of
low-rise buildings.
Due to the complexity of the across wind load and torsion, physical modeling of fluid
structure interactions seems the only feasible means of obtaining information on this
kind of wind loads, although research of computational fluid dynamics has made great
— 9 —
progress in numerically generating flow field around bluff body induced by turbulent
flows. However there are difficulties involved in the wind tunnel tests since wind
tunnel tests are generally time-consuming and expensive. In practice, it is impossible
to conduct wind tunnel tests for all kinds of buildings with different shapes. Therefore,
major building codes and standards have begun to develop empirical relationships to
produce an estimation procedure to evaluate the across wind and torsional dynamic
responses in preliminary structural design, while a further wind tunnel testing for the
final design is necessary.
Among all the building codes, Japan (AIJ) (AIJ, short for Architectural Institute of
Japan, 1996) takes into consideration of along wind loading, across wind loading and
torsion, while Australia(AS1170.2-1989, 1989) and Canada (NRCC,1996) have
addressed both the along wind and across wind response in their current standards.
ASCE 7 (ASCE 7-98, 2000) specifies an unbalanced load equivalent to an eccentricity
of e/D =3.5 percent, and Eurocode 1 (ENV 1991-2-4, 1994) specifies an eccentricity
of 10 percent. Understandably, the development of generalized equations for across
wind and torsional dynamic responses, based on wind tunnel testing, is a valuable
addition to any standard, serving as a cost-effective and time-saving tool in daily
design.
As has been mentioned above, AIJ treats the torsional response of buildings; an
empirical expression for the torsional response was based on a set of wind tunnel
experiments and the experimental data of the response angle acceleration was
collected, a non-dimensional expression for the acceleration was proposed just for
buildings which have negligible eccentric effects. It can be easily seen that the
torsional effects treated in AIJ is just for relatively tall and slender buildings which
have dynamic response under the wind action. For rigid structures which have no
evident dynamic response under wind, ASCE-98 specified an eccentricity expressed
as a certain eccentricity coefficient multiplied by the characteristic length of the
structure. Although torsion effects have been mentioned in those two building codes,
a deep investigation and validation needs to be completed to make the provisions
reliable. Actually, the values produced by the equation of the torsional acceleration in
AIJ are shown to typically overestimate the measured angular tip acceleration by 30%
in comparison with full scale data (Tamura, 2001).
— 10 —
To make the mechanism of wind induced torsion more clear, researches about the
wind distribution around a bluff structure have been carried out; obviously this kind of
research must base on extensive wind tunnel tests.
Boggs (Daryl, 2000) in his paper identifies some common sources of torsional loading
in terms of building shape, interfering effects of nearby buildings, and dynamic
characteristics of the structural frame. In addition, it was shown that torsional loading
is routinely larger than that provided for design in most standards. Boggs’ works are
mainly focused on tall buildings. Investigations of torsional loads on middle rise and
low rise buildings are even less.
Usually the wind induced loadings of a certain building are studied separately,
however in fact, the building is under the action of all the wind induced loading in
three dimensional directions. So besides the across-wind loads and torsional loads,
another wind loading topic that needs to be paid attention to is the wind load
combination of along-wind, across-wind loading and torsional moment.
Many researchers such as Melbourne (Melbourne, 1975), Vickery and Basu (Vickery,
1984), and Solari and Pagnini (Solari, 1999), have investigated the along-wind load
and across-wind load combinations, but they mainly focused on the behavior of tall
buildings and structures. In the design of low-rise and middle-rise buildings, for
which the along-wind response is predominant, the combination of along-wind,
across-wind loads and torque is tended to be ignored, since it is commonly known that
the along-wind force fluctuations are mainly caused by the turbulence in the
approaching wind, the across-wind load and torsional moment fluctuations are
dominantly induced by vortex shedding and thus it is supposed that the along-wind
loading has no correlation with across-wind load and torsional moment.
Wind load combination of low-rise buildings was once studied by Tamura.et.al. In his
paper (Tamura, 2003), wind pressures acting on a building are integrated over all its
surfaces and quasi-steady along-wind, across-wind loading and torque at the base of
the low rise buildings were first obtained, and then the extreme instantaneous pressure
distributions were investigated when the along-wind and across-wind loads, and the
torsional moment at the base of the low rise building are maximum.
From the selected samples, the pressure distributions when along-wind loading and
torque are maximum, are similar to each other, while the similarity of pressure
— 11 —
distributions coinciding to maximum across wind and torsional moment is not
significant, which conflicts with the general knowledge that across-wind load is
correlated with torsional moment while the along-wind load is supposed to have no
correlation with across-wind load and torsional moment. The following graph shows
examples of instantaneous extreme pressure distribution for maximum along-wind,
across-wind loads and torsional moment in the paper.
(a) causing CDmax (b) causing CLmax (c) causing CMTmax
Figure 1.1 Examples of instantaneous pressure distributions causing maximum wind force
coefficients
Tamura also found out that when the along-wind load is maximum, the corresponding
torsional moment can be any values; while when the torsional moment is maximum,
the corresponding along-wind load will be very close to its maximum value, which
further proves the correlation between along-wind load and torsional moment. Tamura
explains the correlation between the along-wind loading, across-wind loading and
torsional moment by investigating the correlation of the absolute values of time
histories of these three forces, which on the surface indeed gives a good explanation,
since the correlation between the absolute value of along-wind loading and torsional
moment time histories, or along-wind loading and across-wind loading time histories
is really high with correlations close to 0.5 while the correlation coefficient between
across-wind loading and torsional moment time histories is just about 0.2. The
following graph show the cross correlation of CD, CL, CMT and cross correlation of
absolute CD, CL, CMT in Tamura’s paper.
— 12 —
CD- CL CD- CMT CL- CMT
Figure 1.2 Cross-correlation coefficients between wind forces
CD- CL CD- CMT CL- CMT
Figure 1.3 cross-correlation coefficients between absolute wind forces

Tamura’s research challenged the widely accepted knowledge that along-wind loading
has no significant correlation with across-wind loading and torsional moment.
However, there are several problems involved in the above mentioned correlation
research, which need to be investigated furthermore.
First, the similarity between the instantaneous extreme distribution of along-wind load
and torsional moment is proved based on several selected samples which limited its
generality. And furthermore the absolute correlation has no physical and mathematical
meaning, because in engineering design, the sign of the along-wind and across-wind,
torsional moment do matter, for example, if the normal stress or shear stress in a
structural member is considered, the sign of the external force should be considered.
And also making absolute to data will change the properties of time series, and will
make the original zero mean fluctuating external force time history physically non-
meaningful. So a more reliable and reasonable explanation needs to be provided.
Although there are some problems involved in Tamura’s analysis, Tamura’s study did
point out the importance of considering wind load combination for structural design.
Tamura in his paper (Tamura, 2003) considered a simple frame model with four
— 13 —
columns on the corner and stiff roof, it is found out that the total load effects of the six
wind load components for low-rise building models result in a 30% increase on
average of the peak normal stress in column members compared with the case only
applying the along-wind load.
Few structure codes and standards have considered wind load combination. ASCE 7-
2005 just gives simple wind load combinations for buildings higher than 60ft, in this
case, 75% of along-wind load and the same values are simultaneously applied in the
across-wind direction, while the torsional load is taken into consideration by using an
eccentricity as its previous version. Besides American Codes, AS1170.2 considers the
load combination by providing a formula for peak vector moment, and it is assumed
that the peak resultant base moment is equal to the peak along-wind moment when the
across-wind response is zero or across-wind dynamic response is less than along-wind
response. The consideration of wind load combination in Codes or Standards is really
coarse and actually few data have been reported on wind load combinations for low
and middle rise buildings.
From the discussion above, it can be seen that for low-rise buildings, wind induced
torsion is still a research field on which few study has been done. Also how to
consider its combination with along-wind and across-wind should be investigated in
detail.
1.4 Wind Loads on Tall Building
Extensive research about wind loads on tall buildings has been done in the past few
years. Tall buildings, under the action of wind, will be subject to vibrations in along-
wind, across-wind and torsional directions, and generally wind loadings in these three
different directions are studied separately. In the following, they will be discussed
respectively.
The along-wind loads have been dealt with successfully by using quasi-steady and
strip theories in terms of gust loading factors. The gust loading factor method was
originally introduced by Davenport (Davenport, 1967), and was utilized to treat wind
loads on structures under the buffeting action of wind gusts in most major codes and
standards all around the world. In this method, the equivalent static wind load is equal
— 14 —
to the mean wind load multiplied by the gust loading factor. The gust loading factor
takes the dynamics of wind fluctuations and any load amplification induced by the
building dynamics into consideration. Several papers (Simiu, 1966; Holmes, 2002;
Solari, 1993; Gurley, 1993) have provided some formulations for the gust loading
factor. Because of the simplicity of this method, the gust loading factor is widely
accepted and employed in wind loading codes in almost all major countries such as
Australian, Canada, USA, Japan, and Europe. It should be noted that the traditional
gust loading is based on displacement response while the AS1170.2-89 and ACI
standard apply it to base bending moment.
Despite its simplicity, the gust loading factor method has some limitations. Although
the gust loading factor is supposed to be used for any response, it is originally defined
on the displacement response, that is, the gust factor is actually the ratio between the
maximum and the mean displacement response and usually referred to DGLF. In
practice, this DGLF is used for any response indiscriminately, which may result in
inaccurate estimation. For a given structure, the GLF is constant because it involves
only the fluctuating and mean displacement response in the first mode and when a
constant GLF independent of height is used for estimating the extreme equivalent
wind loading, the equivalent wind loading will be the same as mean wind loading,
which is conflict with the common understanding of the equivalent static wind loads
on tall, flexible buildings. For this kind of building, the resonant response is the
dominant one; therefore, the distribution of equivalent static wind loads should
depend on the mode shape and mass distribution. It is found (Zhou, 1999) that the
DGLF can give accurate estimation for displacement but for other responses such as
base shear force its assessment is less accurate. Another obvious limitation is that this
method is invalid if either the mean wind force or the mean response is zero; an
example is a cantilever bridge with an asymmetrical first mode shape, in this case, the
DGLF can’t be defined since the mean displacement response in the first mode is zero.
By recognition of the shortcoming of the traditional DGLF, Davenport (Davenport,

1999) and Drybre and Hansen (Drybre, 1997) developed refined GLF concept, which
is based on the response related to the influence function, but not limited to
displacement. Holmes (Holmes, 2001) also presented a detailed treatment of GLF for
a range of applications. All these improvements in GLF method result in a more
— 15 —
accurate estimation of structural response. However, in the case of zero mean
response, these refined approaches fail like the traditional one.
Kareem provided an alternative format (Kareem, 2003), in which the GLF is based on
the base bending moment rather than displacement. The extreme base bending
moment is obtained by multiplying the mean base bending moment by the new GLF
(referred to MGLF). Then the base bending moment is distributed to each floor in
terms of floor load in a format similar to the one used in earthquake engineering to
distribute base shear.
Kareem also extended the new framework to formulate wind load effects in the
across-wind and torsion directions based on the GLF method (Kareem, 2003), which
has generally been used for along-wind response.
Chen and Kareem (Chen, 2003, 2004) recently proposed an equivalent static wind
load that linearly combines the background and resonant loading components. The
background and resonant loading components are derived by using the concept of gust
loading envelope and the distribution of inertial loads respectively. Gust loading
envelope method provides a very simple load description compared with the load-
response-correlation (LRC) method proposed by Kasperski (Kasperski, 1992), since
the background equivalent static wind loading based on LRC method depends on the
response of interest.
Based on the important pioneer role gust loading factor plays in the research of wind
loading, it is necessary to describe it in detail.
1.4.1 DGLF approach
The traditional GLF or DGLF is described as follows:
In the DGLF approach, the peak load is expressed as
Pˆ ( z ) = G • P ( z ) (1.10)
where G is gust factor, which takes the dynamics of gusts and the structure into
consideration; P (z ) is the mean wind force, z is the position coordinate.
In the DGLF method, G is given in terms of the displacement response
Yˆ ( z )
GY = (1.11)
Y ( z)
— 16 —
ˆ
where GY is DGLF, Y ( z ) , Y (z ) are the extreme displacement response and mean
displacement respectively. For a stationary process, GY can be expressed as:
GY = 1 + g Y σ Y ( z ) / Y ( z ) =1+ 2 g Y I H B + R (1.12)
where g Y is the displacement peak factor; σ Y (z ) is root mean square(RMS)
displacement; B and R are background and resonant factors, respectively; I H is the

turbulent intensity evaluated at the top of the building.
The mean wind load is as follows:
P ( z ) = 1 / 2 ρC DWU H2 ( z / H ) 2α (1.13)
where ρ is the air density, C D drag coefficient; W the width of the structure normal
α
to the incoming wind; U ( z ) = U H ( z / H ) the mean wind velocity at height z above
the ground, U H is the mean wind velocity at building height H; α is the exponent of
the mean wind velocity profile.
Alternatively, the displacement gust factor can be expressed as
GY = 1 + 2 I H g u2 B + g R2 R
(1.14)
where g u is the wind velocity peak factor; g R the resonant peak factor; for a Gaussian
process g R = 2 ln( f 1T ) + 0.5772 / 2 ln( f 1T ) in which T is the observation time, and

f1 the natural frequency of the first mode; R= SE / ς , where S is the size reduction
factor, E the gust energy factor, and ς the critical damping ratio of the first mode.
Almost all traditional formulations of the DGLF are based on preceding expressions,
but are different in their modeling of turbulence and structure models. The
coefficients B, E and S are provided in graphs in some codes and given in close forms
in others.
Equation (1.14) can be rewritten in terms of mean, background and resonant

components
GY = 1 + GYB
2
+ GYR
2
(1.15)
— 17 —
where GYB and GYR are background and resonant components of the DGLF
respectively.
The mean displacement can usually be estimated by the first mode mean displacement
response
Y ( z ) = P1 ∗ / k1∗ ⋅ ϕ1 ( z ) (1.16)
H H
where P1 ∗ = ∫ P ( z )ϕ1 ( z )dz , k1∗ = (2πf 1 ) 2 m1∗ and m1∗ = ∫ m( z )ϕ12 ( z )dz are the
0 0
generalized load, stiffness and mass of the first mode, respectively.
Usually the mode shape is approximated by exponential function
ϕ1 ( z ) = c ( z / H ) β (1.17)
where c and β are constants, the mass is assumed to be linearly distributed as
m( z ) = m0 (1 − λ ( z / H )) (1.18)
λ is the mass reduction factor
The fluctuating displacement can be approximated by that in the first mode

∞
σ Y ( z ) = ( ∫ S ξ ( f )df )1 / 2 ⋅ ϕ1 ( z )
1
(1.19)
0
where S ξ1 is the power spectral density function of the fluctuating generalized
displacement, which can be computed following the approach given by Davenport [28]
∞
S ξ1 ( f ) = ∫ S u ( f ) ⋅ χ ( β , f ) ⋅ H d ( f ) df
2
(1.20)
0
where S u ( f ) is the PSD of fluctuating wind velocity, χ ( β , f ) the aerodynamic

admittance function which relates the wind velocity PSD to the PSD of the resulting
fluctuating wind force; for along-wind loading, the strip and quasi-steady theories can
be regarded as valid, and by considering wind structure in terms of vertical and
horizontal correlations while ignoring the correlation between wind pressures on
windward and leeward surfaces, the following relationship holds:
S P~ ∗ ( f ) = χ ( β , f ) ⋅ S u ( f ) (1.21)
1
— 18 —
where
( ρC DWHU H ) 2
χ (β , f ) = J X ( f ) J Z (α , β , f )
2 2
(1.22)
(1 + α + β ) 2
and
1 W W
JX ( f ) = ∫ ∫
2
R X ( x1 , x 2 , f )dx1 dx 2 (1.23)
W2 0 0
(1 + α + β ) 2 H H z1 α + β z 2 α + β
J Z (α , β , f ) = ∫ ∫
2
( ) ( ) RZ ( z1 , z 2 , f )dz1 dz 2 (1.24)
H2 0 0 H H
are the joint acceptance functions in the horizontal and vertical directions,
respectively.
R X ( x1 , x 2 , f ) = exp(−(C X f / U (h)) x1 − x 2 ) (1.25)
and
RZ ( z1 , z 2 , f ) = exp(−(C Z f / U (h)) z1 − z 2 ) (1.26)
are the horizontal and vertical coherence functions of the fluctuating wind pressure,
respectively; C X and C Z are the exponential decay coefficients, and h is the reference
height. It can be figured out that the aerodynamic admittance depends not only on the
turbulence characteristics and structure shape but also mode shape. The mechanical
admittance function for the first mode displacement is
H d ( f ) = H 1 ( f ) / k1∗2
2 2
(1.27)
where,
1
H1 ( f ) =
2
(1.28)
[1 − ( f / f 1 ) ] + (2ςf / f 1 ) 2
2 2
Then the fluctuating part of the DGLF is
2
σ Y / Y ( z ) = ⎛⎜ ∫ S P~ ( f ) H 1 ( f ) df ⎞⎟ / P ∗
2
(1.29)
⎝ ⎠
∗
— 19 —
The integration in the above formula is usually divided into background and resonant
response factors. The background and resonant components can be expressed,
respectively by
GYB = 2 g u I H B (1.30)
GYR = 2 g R I H R (1.31)
∞
where B= ∫ k ( β , f ) S u∗ ( f )df , R= SE / ς are background and resonant response factors;
0
2 + 2α 2
k (β , f ) = ( ) J X ( f ) J Z (α , β , f ) , S= k ( β , f 1 ) the size reduction factor;
2 2
1+α + β
E = (πf 1 / 4) S u∗ ( f1 ) is the gust energy factor; S u∗ ( f ) the normalized wind velocity
spectrum with respect to the mean square fluctuating wind velocity, σ u2 . In most
Codes and Standards, a linear mode shape assumption is used, that is, β = 1 .
1.4.2 MGLF approach
The MGLF method proposed by Kareem is described as follows (Kareem, 2003):
The gust factor in MGLF is defined as
G M = Mˆ I / M I (1.32)
where G M is the MGLF; M I is the mean base bending moment, M̂ I is the extreme
base bending moment. The subscript ‘I’ means induced BBM, which is different from
the externally aerodynamic moment.
For a Gaussian process, the MGLF can be expressed as
G M = 1 + g M σ M~ ( z ) / M I (1.33)
I
where g M is the peak factor; and σ M~ is the RMS base bending moment.
I
The base bending moment involves dynamics of gusts and structures and can be
derived by the following mode generalized equations of structural motion:
~
m1∗ξ1 (t ) + c1∗ξ1 (t ) + k1∗ξ1 (t ) = P1∗ (t ) (1.34)
— 20 —
~
where m1∗ , c1∗ , k1∗ , ξ1 , P1∗ are generalized mass, damping, stiffness, displacement, and
load in the first mode, respectively. The generalized quasi-static wind load k1∗ξ1 can
be determined from the generalized displacement.
When the generalized quasi-static wind load is applied on the building, the
corresponding generalized displacement and any other response are equal to those
obtained by a detailed dynamic analysis.
The PSD of the generalized equivalent-static wind load is given by
S P~∗ = k1∗2 S ξ1 ( f ) = S P~ ∗ ( f ) H 1 ( f )
2
(1.35)
e
~ ~ ~
where the generalized quasi-static wind load Pe∗ (t ) = ∫ Pe ( z, t )ϕ1 ( z )dz , Pe is the
equivalent static wind load (ESWL).

~
The ESWL Pe is usually distributed along the building height in a manner different
from that of mean wind load or fluctuating externally applied aerodynamic wind loads.
If a linear mode shape is assumed, the following relationships are valid for both the
externally applied and the equivalent-static wind loads:
~
~∗ M
P = (1.36)
H
~
~∗ M I
Pe = (1.37)
H
~ ~
where, M , M I are the fluctuating components of the externally applied and the
induced base bending moment, respectively. It is important to distinguish between the
equivalent-static (induced) and the aerodynamic (externally applied wind loads) wind
loads. The former includes any amplification from building dynamics.
Substituting equation (1.36) and (1.37) into equation (1.35) leads to
S M~ I ( f ) = S M~ ( f ) H 1 ( f )
2
(1.38)
The equation provides a new probabilistic treatment of buffeting as shown in Figure

1.4 (b) (Zhou, 2001).
— 21 —
Log. Frequency
(a) DGLF model
Log. Frequency
(b) MGLF model
Figure 1.4.Probablistic dynamic-based approaches to gust loading
Compared to the traditional DGLF method, the MGLF has two advantages. First, it
gives a concise description of the relationship between the aerodynamic load and the
induced wind load effects. Second, in traditional method, the aerodynamic admittance
is difficult to evaluate from theoretical consideration and the resultant response
estimations are variable. The aerodynamic admittance function in the traditional
method is actually a transfer function from the input turbulence to the generalized
wind load, while the generalized wind load is dependent on the normalization used to
define the mode shape, which makes the aerodynamic admittance becomes a function
of the mode shape. This will definitely complicates the verification of its theoretical
formulation with experimental measurements. However in the MGLF method, the
aerodynamic admittance is the relationship between input turbulence and the base
bending moment, in this case, the base bending moment(BBM) can be efficiently
ascertained by some effective tools such as HFBB.
∞
σ M~ / M I = ( ∫ S M~ ( f ) H 1 ( f ) df )1 / 2 / M I
2
(1.39)
I 0
The MGLF can be expressed by
G M = 1 + 2 I H g u2 B + g R2 R =1+ G MB
2
+ G MR
2
(1.40)
— 22 —
A detailed derivation of the terms in the above formula is given below.
The mean BBM on a tall building is
1 / 2 ρVC DWU H2 H 2
M I = ∫ P ( z ) zdz =
H
(1.41)
0 2 + 2α
where, the subscript ‘I’ means induced base bending moment, which is different from
the externally aerodynamic moment M.
The fluctuating BBM response is divided into background and resonant components,
the background base moment can be derived by using the expression given in[34] by
employing the influence function i(z)=z;
∞ z1 α z 2 α
∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
H H W W
Mˆ IB = g u ( ρC DWU H ) 2 ( ) ( ) RZ ( f ) R X ( f ) S u ( f ) z1 z 2 dx1 dx 2 dz1 dz 2 df
0 0 0 0 0 H H
I H ρU H2 C DWH 2 ∞
∫ S u∗ ( f ) J X ( f ) J Z (α ,1, f ) df
2 2
= gu (1.42)
2 +α 0
Mˆ IB 2 + 2α ∞
G MB = ∫ S u∗ ( f ) J X ( f ) J Z (α ,1, f ) df
2 2
= 2gu I H (1.43)
MI 2 +α 0
Since the influence function is used, the contribution from higher modes and mode
coupling are automatically included.
For the resonant component, the equivalent static wind load is equal to the inertial
force. Typically only the first mode is considered. If a non-linear mode shape and a
non-uniform mass distribution are utilized, the first mode extreme resonant
displacement is given by
( I ρU H C DW ) (1 + 2β )(2 + 2β )
YˆR ( z ) = g R H
(2πf 1 ) m0 (1 + α + β )[(2 + 2β ) − λ (1 + 2β )]
2
β
(1.44)
πf1 ∗ ⎛ z ⎞
× J X ( f1 ) J Z (α , β , f1 ) S u ( f1 ) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
2 2
4ς ⎝H⎠
It can be seen from the above formula that the displacement distribution along the
building follows the mode shape. The corresponding resonant ESWL can be
expressed as
— 23 —
(1 + 2β )(2 + 2β )
PˆR ( z ) = (2πf1 ) 2 m( z )YˆR ( z ) = ( g R I H ρU H2 C DW )
(1 + α + β )[(2 + 2β ) − λ (1 + 2β )]
(1.45)
πf1 ∗ z z
× J X ( f1 ) J Z (α , β , f1 ) S u ( f1 ) ⋅ (1 − λ )( ) β
2 2
4ς H H
From the above formulation, it can be seen that the distribution of the resonant ESWL
depends not only on the mode shape but also the mass distribution.
The BBM induced by resonant ESWL can be derived by
H (1 + 2β )(2 + 2β )
Mˆ IR = ∫ PˆR ( z ) zdz = g R I H ρU H2 C DWH 2
0 (1 + α + β )[(2 + 2 β ) − λ (1 + 2β )]
(1.46)
[(3 + β ) − λ (2 + β )] πf1 ∗
× J X ( f 1 ) J Z (α , β , f1 )
2 2
S u ( f1 )
(3 + β )(2 + β ) 4ς
The resonant component of the MGLF is
Mˆ IR (1 + 2β )(2 + 2β )(2 + 2α ) [(3 + β ) − λ (2 + β )]

G MR = = 2g R I H ⋅
MI (1 + α + β )[(2 + 2β ) − λ (1 + 2β )] (3 + β )(2 + β )
(1.47)
πf 1 ∗
× J X ( f1 ) J Z (α , β , f1 )
2 2
S u ( f1 )
4ς
The above mentioned GLF methods, no matter based on traditional displacement

response or on the base bending moment, will result in an ESWL that has distribution
similar to the mean wind load. Although GLF can make accurate estimation of
displacement or base bending moment, it may not give good estimation to other
responses.
1.4.3 DRF approach
Besides gust response factor (GRF) method, the DRF is defined as the ratio of peak
dynamic response which includes mean, background and resonant components to the
response caused by the peak dynamic load that includes the mean and the background
load effects without any reduction due to loss of spatial correlation of wind loading.
For example, the DRF for response R is expressed as:
R x + g b2σ R2xb + g r2σ R2xr

DR x = (1.48)
R + g bσ R' xb
— 24 —
H
σ R' = ∫ u x ( z ) R P ( z ) dz = σ R / B xz
xb x xb
(1.49)
0
HH
∫ ∫u x ( z1 )u x ( z 2 ) RPxx ( z1 , z 2 )dz1 dz 2
B xz = 0 0
H
(1.50)
∫u
0
x ( z1 ) RPx ( z1 )dz1
where R Px ( z ) = RPxx ( z , z ) ; B z is the background factor representing the reduction
effects of response R x due to loss of spatial correlation of wind pressure. From the
above equations, the relationship between gust response factor and dynamic response
factor can be expressed as:
1 + G R2xb + G R2xr
D Rz = (1.51)
1 + G Rxb / B z
where G Rxb = g bσ Rxb / R x and G Rxr = g r σ Rxr / R x are background and resonant GRF’s,
respectively.
Once the DRF is decided, the equivalent static wind loading is expressed as:
FeRx = DRx ( Px ( z ) + Febx

'
( z )) (1.52)
'
Where Febx ( z ) = g b RPx (z ) ) =gust loading envelop.
From the above formula, it can be seen that the pressure distribution of equivalent
static wind loading based on DRF is similar to the peak dynamic wind loading.
1.4.4 Linear Combination of Background and

Resonant Equivalent Static Wind Loads
All the above methods take background and resonant responses into consideration by
a single factor; and the corresponding equivalent static wind load is also considered
without separating it into background and resonant components. Alternatively, the
ESWL can be separated into background and resonant components based on their
frequency content. The background ESWL (BESWL) depends on the external wind
load characteristics. The load-response-correlation method proposed by Kasperski
will result in a background effective load distribution that varies for response under
consideration. Repetto and Solari (Repetto, 2004) proposed an ESWL distribution
— 25 —
identical for all response components, expressed in terms of a polynomial expansion.
A gust loading envelop (GLE) approach was proposed by Chen and Kareem (Chen,
2004), which provides a BESWL distribution similar to the gust loading envelope.
And when the dynamic wind load distributions are unknown but the integrated base
forces are available by using the HFBB technique, the BESWL can be approximately
obtained by distributing the base bending moment over the building height.
On the other hand, the resonant ESWL can be evaluated as model inertial load. Then
the ESWL for total peak response can be expressed as a linear combination of the
background and resonant loads. The detailed description of equivalent static wind
load as the linear combination of background and resonant equivalent static wind
loads is discussed below.
Assume R is the structural response of interest at the building height z0, the mean,
background components can be calculated by static and quasi-static analysis. As far as
the resonant component is concerned, it can be analyzed by modal analysis involving
only the fundamental modes.
H
R = ∫ Px ( z )u x ( z )dz (1.53)
0
HH
σ Rb = ∫∫µ ( z1 ) µ x ( z 2 ) RPxx ( z1 , z 2 )dz1 dz 2
2
x (1.54)
0 0
∫ m( z )Θ x ( z ) µ x ( z )dz
π
σR = 0
f1 S Q ( f1 ) (1.55)
r H
4ξ1 x
∫ m( z )Θ
2
x ( z )dz
0
HH
S Qx ( f ) = ∫ ∫Θ
0 0
x ( z1 )Θ x ( z 2 ) S Pxx ( z1 , z 2 , f )dz1 dz 2 (1.56)
H is the building height, R Pxx ( z1 , z 2 ) is the covariance, S Pxx ( z1 , z 2 , f ) is the cross
power spectral density between Px ( z1 , t ) and Px ( z 2 , t ) ; S Qx ( f ) is the power spectral
density of the generalized modal force. Peak dynamic response (excluding the mean
response), Rmax is obtained by combining the background and resonant response
components:
— 26 —
Rmax = g b2σ R2b + g r2σ R2r (1.57)
Where, gb and gr are peak factors for the background and resonant responses,
respectively.
ESWL corresponding to maximum background response g bσ Rb can be calculated by
LRC method as
H
gb
FeRb ( z ) =
σR ∫µ
0
x ( z1 ) RPxx ( z , z1 )dz1 (1.58)
b
The BESWL thus calculated depends on the specific response, so for different
response, the BESWL is different. This characteristic limits the application of LRC
method although the LRC method can provide accurate calculation of BESWL. Chen
proposed a method to present BESWL as the gust loading envelope (GLE) multiplied
by a background factor
FeRb ( z ) = B z Febx
'
( z ) = B z g b RPx ( z ) (1.59)
σR H
Bz = ; σ R' = ∫ u x ( z ) Febx
b '
( z )dz / g b (1.60)
σR ' 0
b
'
where Febx ( z ) is the gust loading envelope, R Px ( z ) = RPxx ( z , z ) ; g bσ R' b is the peak
background response under the gust loading envelope which didn’t take the loss of
spatial correlation of wind load over the building height; B z represents the reduction
effect with respect to the response due to loss of wind load correlation. A extreme
situation is that the wind load is completely correlated, that is,
R Pxx ( z1 , z 2 ) = R Px ( z1 ) R Px ( z 2 ) ; for this case, B z will reduce to unity.
The RESWL for the peak resonant response Rr max = g r σ Rr is given in terms of the
inertial load distribution:
g r m( z )Θ x ( z ) π
Ferx ( z ) = f1 S Q ( f1 ) (1.61)
H
4ξ1 x
∫ m ( z )Θ
2
x ( z )dz
0
The ESWL for total peak dynamic response, Rmax, can be provided as a linear
combination of the background and resonant loads:
— 27 —
FeR ( z ) = [ g bσ Rb B z Febx
'
( z ) + g r σ Rr Ferx ( z )] / g b2σ R2b + g r2σ R2r (1.62)
It can also be expressed in another form
g bσ Rb g r σ Rr
FeR ( z ) = '
B z Febx ( z) + Ferx ( z ) (1.63)
g b2σ R2b + g r2σ R2r g b2σ R2b + g r2σ R2r
g r σ Rr
FeR ( z ) = Wb B z Febx
'
( z ) + Wr Ferx ( z ) (1.64)
g b2σ R2b + g r2σ R2r
where
g bσ Rb 1
Wb = = (1.65),
g b2σ R2b + g r2σ R2r ⎛g ⎞
2
⎛ σ Rr ⎞
2
1 + ⎜⎜ r ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ gb ⎠ ⎜σ R ⎟
⎝ b ⎠
⎛ g r ⎞⎛ σ Rr ⎞
g r σ Rr ⎜ g ⎟⎜ σ ⎟
⎝ b ⎠⎝ Rb ⎠
Wr = = (1.66)
g b2σ R2b + g r2σ R2r ⎛g ⎞
2
⎛ σ Rr ⎞
1 + ⎜⎜ r ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ gb ⎠ ⎜σ R ⎟
⎝ b ⎠
For different responses, the weighting factors are different and so is the background
response reduction factor B z , however, by using parametric analysis, for different
responses, the weighting factors depends only on the ratio of root mean square(RMS)
values of background and resonant response.
1.4.5 Across-wind and torsional wind loading
The methods discussed above are mainly aimed to establish along-wind loading.
Under the action of strong winds, tall buildings will vibrate in along-wind, across-
wind and torsional directions. In many cases, the wind-induced responses due to
across-wind and torsional excitations are as important as those induced by along-wind
excitation in terms of both serviceability and survivability design of tall buildings.
Although the along-wind loads have been successfully treated by using quasi-static
and strip theories in terms of gust loading factors, the across-wind and torsional loads
can’t be treated in the same manner, since these loads can’t be related in a
straightforward manner to the fluctuations in the incoming flow.
— 28 —
Piccardo and Solari reported a 3D closed-form GLF formulation based on a
combination of the quasi-steady theory and empirical fit to a general across-wind
spectrum utilizing the DGLF framework.
Kareem extended the new MGLF framework for the formulation of wind load effects
of along-wind response to the across-wind and torsional directions (Kareem, 2003). In
his paper, the proposed 3D GLF is an extension of a new MGLF concept based on the
base bending moment or base torque response defined as
G = Mˆ / M ' (1.67)
where G is the GLF; M ' is the reference mean base bending moment or base torque,
which can be computed for the across-wind and torsional modes, respectively, by
H
M ' D , L = ∫ P ( z ) zdz (1.68)
0
H
M ' T = ∫ P ( z )(0.04 B)dz (1.69)
0
where P (z ) is the mean along-wind load at any height z above the ground; and H and
B are the building height and width normal to the oncoming wind, respectively.
Subscript D, L, and T represent the along-wind, across-wind and torsional directions
respectively. It should be noted that the reference base bending moment in equation
(1.68) and the reference base torque in equation (1.69) are not the actual mean base
moments that act on the building. For most symmetrical buildings, the mean base
bending moment and base torque are usually close to zero. The reference base
bending moment in across-wind direction is set equal to the along-wind base bending

moment for convenience. M is the peak base bending moment or base torque, which
can be expressed as :

M = M + g ⋅σ M (1.70)
where M is the mean base bending moment or base torque. g is the peak factor,
∞
normally 3~4; and σ M = ( ∫ S M ( f )df )1 / 2 is the RMS of base bending moment or base
0
torque. S M ( f ) is the power spectral density(PSD) of the fluctuating base moment or
— 29 —
base torque. A usually used practice is to divide the above integration into two
portions as below:
σ M = σ MB
2
+ σ MR
2
(1.71)
Where σ MB and σ MR are the background and resonant components of the base
bending moment or base torque. Consequently, the 3D GLF in equation (1.67) can be
expressed in the form:
G = G + G B2 + G R2 (1.72)
where G , G B and G R are the mean, background and resonant components of GLF,
respectively.
M
G = , G B = g B ⋅ σ MB / M ' , G R = g R ⋅ σ MR / M ' (1.73)
M'
where g B = g u is the background peak factor or peak factor for the fluctuating wind
velocity. It can be noted that when considering the along-wind response, the 3D GLF
reduces exactly to MGLF. For along-wind response, the mean component of GLF is
unity; while for across-wind and torsional responses, it is usually very small or zero.
The calculation for background and resonant components of the base bending moment
or base torque is discussed below.
Generally speaking, most GLF-based method involves the generalized wind loading,
while it is found that generalized wind loading is quite sensitive to mode shape
exponent and the aerodynamic pressure characteristics (Zhou, 2002). In engineering
practice, the mode shape exponent or the parameters used to describe the wind
pressure distribution are usually unknown and need to be estimated. And also it is
noted that the BBM based GLF approaches can greatly reduce the sensitivity. The
PSD of the fluctuating base bending moment or base torque can be expressed in the
following equation:
S M ( f ) = η M ⋅ S M ( f ) ⋅ H1 ( f )
2
(1.74)
where η M is the mode shape correction for the base moments and torque response.
For background response, both the mode shape correction parameter η M and
— 30 —
2
H 1 ( f ) are equal to unity. If ideal mode shapes are assumed, that is, linear in across-
wind direction and uniform in torsional direction, η M for the resonant response
component is also equal to unity. Unlike the procedure based on generalized wind
loading, η M for base bending moment is relatively insensitive to mode shape exponent,
mass distribution and aerodynamic pressure field. From equation (1.74), based on
definition of background response and white noise assumption, the background and
resonant RMS components of base bending moment or base torque can be expressed
as:
πf1
σ MB = σ M , σ MR = S M ( f1 ) (1.75)
4ς 1
The aerodynamic base moments involve complex fluid-structure interactions, for

along-wind response, where the strip and quasi-steady theories are usually assumed,
analytical procedure can be used to determine this information based on the oncoming
velocity fluctuations and building geometry. For across-wind and torsional directions,
no acceptable analytical procedure can be used. Wind tunnel test seems the only
approach to determine the aerodynamic base moment.
Most codes and standards provide little guidance for the critical across-wind and
torsional response. This is partly due to the fact that the across-wind and torsional
responses result mainly from the aerodynamic pressure fluctuations in the separated
shear layers and wake flow fields, which have no acceptable direct analytical relation
to the oncoming wind velocity fluctuations. So wind tunnel measurements seem the
only way to determine across-wind and torsional loads. For example, the high
frequency base balance (HFBB) and aeroelastic model tests can be used as routine
tools in commercial design practice. For tall buildings, like middle-rise and low rise
buildings, wind induced torsion and across-wind loading should be paid more
attention to and detailed researches based on experimental measurements need to be
carried out for a more reasonable consideration of the across-wind loading and
torsional moment in codes and standards.
Reference
Architectural Institute of Japan (1996), Recommendations for loads on buildings,

1996
— 31 —
AS1170.2-1989, the Australian Wind Loading Standard. SAA, 1989
ASCE 7-98, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE, 2000
Daryl W. Boggs, Noriaki Hosoya, and Leighton Cochran (2000), Sources of Torsional
Wind Loading on Tall Buildings: Lessons From the Wind Tunnel, Proceedings
of the 2000 Structures Congress & Exposition, Philadelphia, May 2000, ed. M.
Elgaaly, SEI/ASCE, 2000
X. Chen, A. Kareem (2003), Equivalent static wind loads on structures, Proceedings

of the 11th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Lubbock, Texas,
June2-5, 2003
X. Chen, A. Kareem (2004), Equivalent static wind loads on buildings: New Model,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.130, No.10, pp.1425
A. G. Davenport (1967), A.G. Gust Loading Factors, Journal of Structural

Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.93, pp.11-34
A. G. Davenport (1995), How can we simplify and generalize wind loads, Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.54/55, pp.657-669
A. G. Davenport (1999), Missing links in wind engineering, Proceedings of the 10th

ICWE, Copenhagen, Denmark,1999,pp.1-8
C. Drybre, S. O. Hansen (1997), wind loads on structures, Wiley, New York,1997
ENV 1991-2-4, EUROCODE I: basis of design and actions on structures, Part 2.4:
wind actions, 1994
K. Gurley, A. Kareem (1993), Gust loading factor for tension leg platforms, Appl.
Ocean Res.Vol.15, Issue3 pp.137-154;
J. D. Holmes (2001), Wind loading on Structures, SPON Press, London, 2001
J. D. Holmes (2002), Effective Static Load Distributions in Wind Engineering,

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.90, pp.91–109
A. Kareem, Y. Zhou (2003),Gust Loading factor-past, present and future, Journal of

Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.91, pp.1301-1328
M. Kasperski, H. J. Niemann (1992), The LRC (Load-response-correlation) method: a

general method of estimating unfavorable wind load distributions for linear and
nonlinear structural behavior, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol.43, pp.1753-1763
M. Kasperski (1992), Extreme wind load distributions for linear and nonlinear design,
Eng.Struct.Vol.14, pp.27-34
T. Kijewski1, A. Kareem, Dynamic Wind Effects: A Comparative Study of Provisions

in Codes and Standards with Wind Tunnel Data,
— 32 —
W. H. Melbourne (1975), Probability distributions of responses of BHP house to wind
action and model comparisons, J.Ind.Aerodyn.1(2)(1975)167
NRCC, User’s Guide-NBC1995 Structural Commentaries (Part 4), 1996
M. P. Repetto and Solari, G.(2004) Equivalent static wind actions on structures,

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.100, No.7,
pp.1032-1040
S. H. Seong, J.A. Peterka (1993), Computer simulation of non-Gaussian wind

pressure .fluctuations, Proceedings of the Seventh US National Conference on
Wind Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, June 27–30, 1993.
E. Simiu, R. Scanlan (1996), Wind Effects on structures: Fundamentals and

Applications to Design, 3rd Edition, Wiley, New York,1996
E. Simiu, T. Stathopoulos (1997), Codification of wind loads on buildings using bluff

body aerodynamics and climatologically databases, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.69–71, pp.497–506.
G. Solari, L.C. Pagnini (1999), Gust buffeting and aeroelastic behavior of poles and
monotubular towers , J.Fluid Struct.13 877
G. Solari (1993), Gust buffeting. I: peak wind velocity and equivalent pressure ,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.119, Issue2, pp.365-382
G. Solari, Gust buffeting. II: dynamic along-wind response, Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, Vol.119, Issue2, pp.383-397
T. Stathopoulos (2003), Wind loads on low buildings: in the wake of Alan

Davenport’s contributions, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol.91, pp.1565–1585
D. Surry, T. Stathopoulos (1977/1978), An experimental approach to the economical

measurement of spatially averaged wind loads, Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 2 ,pp.385–397
Y. Tamura, H. Kikuchi, K. Hibi (2001), Extreme Wind Pressure Distributions on

Low-rise Building Models, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Y. Tamura, H. Kikuchi, K. Hibi (2003), Quasi-static wind load combinations for low-
and middle-rise buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
B. J. Vickery, R. I. Basu, The response of reinforced concrete chimneys to vortex

shedding, Eng. Struct. 6(1984) 324-333
T. Whalen, E. Simiu, G. Harris, J. Lin, D. Surry (1998), The use of aerodynamic

databases for the effective estimation of wind effects in main wind-force
resisting systems: application to low buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.77/78, pp.685–693.
— 33 —
Y. Zhou, A. Kareem, M. Gu (1999), Gust loading factors for design applications,
Proceedings of the 10th ICWE, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999,pp.169-176
Y. Zhou, A. Kareem (2001), Gust loading factor: new model, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol.127, No.2, pp.168-175
Y. Zhou, A. Kareem, M. Gu (2002), Mode shape corrections for wind load effects on
tall buildings, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vo.128, No.1, pp.15-
23.
— 34 —
CHAPTER II
INTEGRATED WIND LOADS ON A FULL-SCALE
LOW-RISE BUILDING
2.1 Introduction
As part of the National Institute for Standards and Technology/Texas Tech University
(NIST/TTU) wind mitigation initiative (WMI), researchers at Texas Tech University
upgraded the data acquisition system at the Wind Engineering Research Field
Laboratory (WERFL) to include 204 pressure transducers relatively uniformly spaced
over all four walls and the roof. In addition to the differential pressure transducers, a
sonic anemometer is mounted at a height of 17 ft above the geometric center of the
WERFL building roof to provide high resolution wind speed and angle of attack data
for analysis. The addition of these taps and transducers allow for the investigation of
overall loads on the building including torsional loading which is the focus of this
chapter.
Wind-induced pressures acting on the WERFL building are integrated over each
surface to obtain three forces and moments at the base of the building along the three
principal axes with its origin at the geometric center of the base of the WERFL
building. Generally, wind loads for structural design are uniform and symmetrical,
and most codes disregard the torsional moments about a vertical axis, only except in
situations where there is an eccentricity between the centers of twist and the building
geometry. Actual overall wind loads are rarely uniformly distributed even for
buildings with symmetrical geometry.
Torsional moments can be divided into two parts: (1) the mean torsional moment; and
(2) the fluctuating torsional moment. Mean torsional moments can occur due to the
non-uniformities in the wind field or for wind directions not aligned with the axes of
building symmetry. The fluctuating torsional moment is caused by the unbalances in
the instantaneous pressure distributions and will be accentuated by the eccentricities
between the aerodynamic mass and elastic centers. Until now, there are no theoretical
models for the consideration of torsional wind load, especially for low-rise buildings.
In this chapter, mean and fluctuating pressure distributions around the WERFL
building are investigated, and the pressure distributions producing maximum
fluctuating along-wind, across-wind, torsional moment at the base of the building are
— 35 —
studied, and the correlation between these forces is studied, finally a method to
investigate the load combination of these forces is proposed.
2.2 Instantaneous Wind Pressure Distribution Causing
Maximum Quasi-Steady Load Effects
The WERFL building is located on the campus of Texas Tech University, seen in
Figure 2.1 (Levitan, 1992). The test building has a length of 45ft, width of 30ft and
height of 13ft. The exposure category for the surrounding terrain can be regarded as
Exposure C as defined in ASCE 2002 (or 2005). The sampling duration for each run
is 15 minute and the sampling rate is 30 Hz, thus in each run there are 27000 sampling
points. Wind speed and direction for this study principally comes from a sonic
anemometer located at a height of 17 ft above the geometric center of the building.
A dataset of 26 records with angles of attack of 0º ± 5º is used for the work presented
here because the situation considered is when wind angle of attack is close to zero.
The tap pressure designations and the definition of wind angle of attack on the
building are shown in Figure 2.2. Wind direction perpendicular to wall 1 is defined as
having an angle of attack of 0º. AOA increases clockwise from wall 1 to wall2, wall3
and wall4. The pressure taps on the walls were distributed at three different levels as
shown in Figure 2.2.
2.2.1 Quasi-static base shear and torsional

base moment
To give a clear view about the quasi-static base shear and torsional moment, the mean
pressure distribution and fluctuating pressure distribution, and the actual extreme
pressure distributions causing those maximum load effects need to be investigated.
Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 show the mean and standard deviation pressure distributions
at three pressure tap layers when the angle of attack (AOA) is 0.1296º. Figure 2.5
shows an example of the instantaneous wall pressure distributions when the maximum
base shear FX was recorded (FX was represented by the maximum fluctuating shear
force coefficient, CX). The extreme pressure pattern of each pressure tap level is
shown in Figure 2.5 to identify any significant differences between the three pressure
tap levels. From left to right in Figure 2.5, the pictures show the pressure distribution
— 36 —
patterns of the lowest, the middle and the top pressure tap layers respectively. For all
the pressure distribution graphs, lines outside wall represents positive, inside negative.
From Figure 2.5, we can see that the instantaneous pressure distributions at two side
walls and the leeward wall are similar to each other at the three levels; and although
the pressure distribution on the windward wall are slightly different from each other,
they have a common characteristic, that is, the pressure distributions generally cluster
on one side of the wall. Large local suctions tend to appear near the windward edges
of side walls. Based on the non-symmetrical features of the wind distribution pattern,
it’s not hard to image that wind induced torsion may accompany the maximum along-
wind force due to the unsymmetrical pressure distribution.
Figure 2.6 shows the example of the instantaneous wall pressure distributions when
the maximum fluctuating base shear FY was recorded (FY was represented by the
maximum shear force coefficient, CY). From left to right in Figure 2.6, the graphs
show the pressure distribution patterns of the lowest, the middle and the top wall
pressure tap levels, respectively. Figure 2.6 shows that a large negative pressure on
one side wall and nearly zero pressure on the other side occur when the maximum
across-wind force occurs. This is the typical pressure patterns for this case.
Figure 2.7 shows an example of the instantaneous wall pressure distributions when the
maximum torsional base moment MT was recorded (MT is represented by the
maximum torsional base moment coefficient, CTmax). From left to right in Figure 2.7,
the graphs show the pressure distribution patterns of the lowest, the middle and the
top pressure tap levels, respectively. For this case, a large negative suction tends to
happen near the windward edge of one of the side walls. The wind pressure
distribution on the windward wall doesn’t spread symmetrically (they generally
cluster to one side) which is also a characteristic of the wind pressure distribution
when maximum along-wind forces are recorded, but the values are much smaller than
those at maximum along-wind forces.
Figure 2.8 shows an example of the instantaneous wall pressure distributions when the
maximum lift force FZ was recorded.
To get the typical extreme pressure distributions causing the maximum load effects at
the base, all the 26 15-minute duration records with angles of attack (AOA) in the
range of 0º~5º, and 355º~360º were ensemble averaged. Figure 2.9 and Figure 2.10
— 37 —
show the ensemble averaged mean pressure distribution and fluctuating pressure
distribution respectively. Figure 2.11 through Figure 2.14 show the typical
instantaneous wall pressure distributions coinciding to maximum along-wind, across-
wind base shear and torsional moment, as well as lift force. From left to right in
Figure 2.9 through Figure 2.14, the graphs show the pressure distribution patterns of
the lowest, the middle and the top pressure wall tap levels, respectively. As far as the
ensemble averaged extreme wind distribution patterns causing maximum across-wind
base shear and maximum torsional base moment are concerned, since the signs of
these force and moment are not important and we only care about the magnitude of
their value, conditional average is used, for example, if the across-wind base shear is
negative according to the coordinate system, the pressure distribution for ensemble
average will be the original pressure distribution mirrored by the centric axis.
Besides pressure distributions, the along-wind force coefficient, across-wind force

coefficient, and torsional moment coefficient, lift force coefficient are also necessary
to be investigated. Table 2.1 lists the mean and standard deviation of the along-wind,
across-wind and torsional moment coefficients, lift force coefficients of the 26
samples. Table 2.2 lists the maximum fluctuating along-wind, across-wind and
torsional moment coefficients, lift force coefficients and their corresponding another
three force coefficients respectively. Here ‘maximum’ means the maximum absolute
value.
For angle of attack (AOA) close to 90º, the mean, fluctuating pressure distributions,
and ensemble averaged extreme pressure distributions coinciding to maximum along-
wind, across-wind, torsional moment and lift force at the base of the building are also
studied. These pressure distributions are shown in Figure 2.15~Figure 2.20.
Table 2.3 lists the mean and standard deviation of the along-wind, across-wind and
torsional moment coefficients, lift force coefficients of the samples under angle of
attack close to 90º. Table 2.4 lists the maximum fluctuating along-wind, across-wind
and torsional moment coefficients, lift force coefficients and their corresponding
another three force coefficients respectively.
It should be noted that for angle of attack close to 0º and 90º, along-wind force and
across-wind force are directed to different directions, that is, for AOA=0º, along-wind
force refers to FX, while for AOA=90º, along-wind force refers to FY.
— 38 —
2.2.2 Correlation between the wind loads
The relationship between the maximum fluctuating base shear FX and its
simultaneously recorded base shear FY, torsional base moment MT as well as lift force
FZ when angle of attack close to 0º is shown in Figure 2.21. CY and CT, CZ ratio is
calculated by using the accompanying CY, CT and CZ divided by their corresponding
maximum fluctuating value recorded in each run. There are 26 runs used for this
graph (AOA from 0 º ~5 º and 355 º ~360 º ). Figure 2.22 shows the relationship
between maximum fluctuating base shear FY and its simultaneously recorded base
shear FX and torsional base moment MT and lift force FZ. Figure 2.23 shows the
relationship between maximum torsional base moment MT and its simultaneously
recorded base shear forces FX, FY and lift force FZ. Figure 2.24 shows the relationship
between maximum lift force FZ and its simultaneously recorded base shear forces FX,
FY and torsional moment MT.
Figure 2.25 and Figure 2.26 show the corresponding relationships when angle of
attack close to 90º.
Figure 2.29(a) and (b) shows an example of cross-correlation between the three wind
forces and torsion, that is, base shear force FX, base shear force FY, lift force FZ and
torsional base moment MT for AOA=0º. Very low correlation between CX-CY and
between CX-CT is observed. A relatively high correlation is noted between CY-CT but
is still less than 0.5. These correlations agree well with the correlations of wind
induced forces acting on high-rise buildings.
Figure 2.30 (a) and (b) show an example of cross-correlation between the three wind
forces and torsion, that is, along-wind base shear, across-wind base shear and
torsional base moment, lift force when AOA is close to 90º. Correlation between CY-
CX at this angle of attack is higher than that when AOA is close to 0º, but still less
than 0.5, and correlation CY-CT is less than 0.3. A very high correlation is noted
between CY-CZ. It should be noted that in this case, the correlation between CX- CT is
low, which is a little different from that when AOA is close to 0º.
— 39 —
2.2.3 Relationship between torsional moment
and other forces
To establish which wall contributes most to the torsional moment MT, the torsional
coefficients of the four walls are calculated respectively for each of the 26 runs under
AOA close to 0º. It can be seen from Table 2.5 that the mean torsion coefficients of
wall 2 are always the maximum and the mean torsion coefficients of wall 4 are always
the minimum, the standard deviations of the torsion coefficients of wall 2 and wall 4
are the largest compared to those of the other walls. The torsion coefficients of the
four walls when the total torsional moment is maximum and minimum are
investigated and are listed in Table 2.6, and it can be seen that the torsional moments
provided by wall 2 and wall 4 (both are side walls) are the main contributors to the
overall torsion. In Table 2.6, there is only one case in which the main contribution of
the torsion comes from wall 1 due to the asymmetric pressure distribution on the
windward wall. It is also noted that for this one run that the torsion contributed by
wall 2 is comparable to that of wall 1.
To make the relationship of wind induced torque with other wind loads more clear,
the correlation of the torsion parts contributed by the four walls and their
corresponding correlation with along-wind load and across-wind load need to be
studied.
From the third and fifth columns of Table 2.7, it can be seen that the torsional
moments induced by pressure distributions on wall 2 and wall 4 are highly correlated
with the along-wind load FX, which is mainly caused by pressure distribution on the
windward and leeward walls (walls 1 & 3). These high correlations are also reflected
in Figure 2.5. From Figure 2.5, it can be seen that when the along-wind load is
maximum, the pressure distributions on wall2 and wall4 are unsymmetrical and there
are large suctions clustering on the windward edges, which will cause large torsional
moments. And because opposite correlations of the along-wind load FX with torsional
moments MT contributed by wall 2 and wall 4, the correlation of the combined
torsional moments of wall 2 and wall 4(main contributors to torsional moment) with
along-wind load FX is low, so is the correlation of total torsional moment and along-
wind load, which can be reflected from the third column of Table 2.9 and the left side
graphs of Figure 2.29(a) respectively.
— 40 —
From Table 2.8, we can see that the correlations between torsional moments induced
by pressure distributions on wall 1,2,3,4 and across-wind load are generally
comparable to each other; because of opposite correlations of across-wind load and
torsional moment from wall1 and wall3, the combined torsional moment of wall1 and
wall3 are almost uncorrelated with across-wind load and since torsional moments
from wall2 and wall4 are correlated with across-wind in the same way, their
combined torsional moment and thus the total torsional moment are correlated with
across-wind load.
In Tamura’s paper, a similarity between pressure distributions producing maximum

along-wind base shear and maximum torsional moment is noted (Tamura, 2001).
Figure 5 of his paper (Figure 2.31 in this Chapter) shows ensemble averaged extreme
pressure distributions causing maximum quasi-static load effects (maximum along-
wind base shear, maximum across-wind base shear and maximum torsional base
moment). From the Figure 2.31, it can be seen that the ensemble averaged wind
pressure distribution causing maximum along-wind and across-wind base shear have
the same characteristic as those of WERFL building, however for ensemble averaged
wind pressure distribution causing maximum torsional moment, there is a little
difference from that for WERFL building. The pressure distribution causing
maximum torsional moment of WERFL building has large suction near windward
edge of one of the side walls with pressure distribution on windward wall clustering to
the same side wall, but pressure distribution on another side wall is almost zero. From
Figure 2.31(c) of this graph, it can be seen that the pressure distribution causing
maximum torsional moment of Tamura’s model has large suctions on windward edge
of both side walls with pressure distribution on windward wall clustering to one side.
One possible for the difference is that mean pressure distribution is included in
ensemble averaged extreme wind pressure distribution causing maximum quasi-static
load effects in Tamura’s paper, but mean pressure distribution is extracted from
ensemble averaged pressure distributions in this chapter for WERFL building.
2.3 Wind induced internal stresses in structure members
The study of correlation of wind loads is a basic step to investigate wind load
combination. The wind induced effects in a structure are affected by pressure
distributions around the building. If the integrated wind loads at the base of the
building calculated from pressure distributions are used, the stresses in structural
— 41 —
system of a building can be regarded as the simultaneous action of various wind loads
including along-wind load, across-wind load, uplift wind load, along-wind bending
moment, across-wind bending moment, and torsion. For high rise buildings, the wind
load combination of along-wind load and across-wind load has been studied, for
example by Melbourne (Melbourne, 1975), Solari and Pagnini (Solari, 1999).
However for low-rise building, wind load combination has not been investigated
thoroughly. Tamura discussed the wind load combination effects. In his paper, the
maximum normal stress in the column members of a simple frame system was studied
to check load combination effects. In this chapter, a similar structure is assumed for
the WERFL building as shown in Figure 2.34. C1, C2, C3 and C4 are four columns
set at the corner of the building model and the roof beams are assumed to be stiff. The
maximum normal stress is caused by resultant effects of surface wind pressure, which
are represented by the six force components at the base of the building, FX, FY, FZ, MX,
MY, and MZ.
Table 2.10 lists the influence coefficients of each of the six force components to the
internal forces in column1, column2, column3 and column4.
Based on the time series of these internal forces, the normal stress in the four columns
were calculated, the peak normal stresses in C1 to C4 averaged over the 26 records
with AOA in the range 0º to 5º or 355º to 360º are calculated. For simplicity, only
results of C1 and C3 are shown. From Table 2.11 and Table 2.12, we can see that the
peak compressive stress considering all wind force components is the largest one in
both columns compared to the compressive stress calculated by the other load
combination cases, while the peak tensile normal stress calculated by combination
(FX+MZ) and (FX+FY+MZ) are much larger than that considering all wind force
components in C1 and C3. This feature also points out that although along-wind load
FX is dominant in cases with AOA close to 0º, the combination of along-wind force
FX and torsional moment MZ is necessary for structure design, even for low-rise
building with relatively larger rigidity.
Another result worth noting is that for column one(C1) peak tensile stress considering
all wind force components is almost 22% larger than that only considering the along-
wind component, and the peak compressive stress is 82% larger than that considering
the along-wind force only.
— 42 —
Table 2.13 and Table 2.14 list the peak fluctuating normal tensile and compressive
stresses calculated by different kinds of load combinations. All the results support the
importance of considering wind load combinations even for rigid building. For the
case when the wind angle of attack is close to 0º, other wind loads besides along-
wind force also need to be taken into account.
2.4 Comparison to responses calculated by ASCE
2.4.1 ASCE (Figure 6-9)
The normal stresses calculated by applying the pressure distribution based on Figure
6-9 of ASCE7-05 are listed in Table 2.15. The pressure distributions based on Case 1
for AOA=0º and AOA=90º are plotted Figure 2.32. The wind load distribution based
on all the other three cases can be derived from these basic pressure distributions.
From Table 2.15., it can be seen that the actual responses and responses calculated
from ASCE are very close to each other. The results calculated from ASCE can be
conservative and inconservative.
2.4.2 ASCE (Figure 6-10)
The normal stresses calculated by applying the pressure distribution based on Figure
6-10 of ASCE7-05 are listed in Table 2.16. A factor 2.34(1.532) is applied to the
pressure coefficients indicated in this figure since in ASCE the pressure coefficient is
3 second gust pressure coefficient while in WERFL full scale experiment, each run is
15 minute long, to make the calculation results from ASCE comparable to actual
responses calculated from full scale pressure time history, the dynamic pressure used
with 3 second gust pressure coefficient in ASCE should be multiplied by the square of
the ratio of 3 second wind speed to 15 minute wind speed which is equal to 1.53. The
pressure distribution from ASCE7-05 for calculation is shown in Figure 2.33.
The pressure coefficients are given by Figure6-10 of ASCE 7-02. in longitudinal

Direction(AOA=0º):
a = 4.5 ft , h = 13.0 ft , qh = 2.605 psf

z Zone 1: p = qh × ( +0.40 ) = + 1.042 psf
z Zone 2: p = qh × ( −0.69 ) = − 1.797 psf
z Zone 3: p = qh × ( −0.37 ) = − 0.964 psf
— 43 —
z Zone 4: p = qh × ( −0.29 ) = − 0.755 psf
z Zone 5 and 6: p = qh × ( −0.45 ) = − 1.172 psf
Similarly,
z Zone 1E: p = qh × ( +0.61) = + 1.589 psf
z Zone 2E: p = qh × ( −1.07 ) = − 2.787 psf
z Zone 3E: p = qh × ( −0.53) = − 1.381 psf
z Zone 4E: p = qh × ( −0.43) = − 1.120 psf
The normal stresses calculated by ASCE pressure distribution are compared with the
actual responses from pressure time history, and are listed in Table 2.16. It should be
noted that negative sign of percentage means that ASCE underestimates the responses.
It can be seen from Table 2.16 that for tensile stress in C1, the result given by ASCE
is conservative, but for compressive stress, the result given by ASCE underestimates
the actual response by 53.8%. For C3, both tensile stress and compressive stress are
underestimated by ASCE with percentage of 1.5% and 45.3% respectively. All the
results prove the inconsistency of ASCE, which means for some responses, it is
conservative while for certain responses, it will greatly underestimate the results. The
deficiency of ASCE load specification has also been pointed out by Simiu et al (Simiu,
2003) and Stathopoulos (Stathopoulos, 2003) and Holmes (Holmes, 2003).
2.5 Derivation of the wind load combination
In wind engineering practice, equivalent static wind loading usually is used for design.
Equivalent static wind loading (ESWL) will cause the same peak response as the
actual wind load. So for different structural response, the effective static wind loads
are different. A low-rise building immersed in a wind field is usually mainly under the
action of along-wind, across-wind and wind induced torsion. To get an equivalent
static wind load for a specific response under the action of these forces, a reasonable
combination of these three forces needs to be proposed.
To consider a reasonable combination of along-wind load, across-wind load and

torsional moment, a set of weighting factors for these three forces needs to be
established. The determination of weighting factors is based on the principle that the
combined wind loading when applied on the structure will cause the same peak
response as the actual response. The derivation of weighting factors is described as
follows.
— 44 —
Suppose a structure response R is of interest; the wind induced fluctuating part of R
can be expressed in terms of fluctuating QX, QY and MT
R (t ) = µ RxQX + µ RyQY + µ Rt M T (2.1)
where µ Rx , µ Ry , µ Mt are the influence coefficients when a unit load of QX , QY and
M T are applied on the structure respectively, QX , QY and M T are fluctuating along-

wind load, across-wind load and torque.
To obtain the equivalent static wind loads based on the response R, that is to set up a
reasonable ESWL under the action of which a peak value of R will achieve, the RMS
of R needs to be incorporated:
σ R2 = µ Rx
2
σ Q2 + µ Ry
2
σ Q2 + µ Rt2 σ M2 + 2 µ Rx µ Ry ρ Q Q σ Q σ Q +
x y t x y x y
(2.2)
2 µ Rx µ Rt ρ Qx M t σ Qx σ M t + 2 µ Ry µ Rt ρ Qy M t σ Q y σ M t
The above formula can be represented in another form:
σ R = µ Rx ( µ Rxσ Q + µ Ry ρ Q Q σ Q + µ Rt ρ Q M σ M )σ Q / σ R +
x x y y x t t x
µ Ry ( µ Rx ρ Q Q σ Q + µ Ryσ Q + µ Rt ρ Q M σ M )σ Q / σ R +
x y x y y t t y
(2.3)
µ Rt ( µ Rx ρ Q M σ Q + µ Ry ρ Q M σ Q + µ ' Rt σ M )σ M / σ R
x t x y t y t t
It can be easily shown that:
σ R _ Q = µ Rxσ Q , σ R _ Q = µ Ryσ Q , σ R _ M = µ Rtσ M

x x y y t t
(2.4)
So
σ R = µ Rx (σ R _ Q + ρ Q Q σ R _ Q + ρ Q M σ R _ M )σ Q / σ R +
x x y y x t t x
µ Ry ( ρ Q Q σ R _ Q + σ R _ Q + ρ Q M σ R _ M )σ Q / σ R +
x y x y y t t y
(2.5)
µ ' Rt ( ρ Q M σ R _ Q + ρ Q M σ R _ Q + σ R _ M )σ M / σ R
x t x y t y t t
A simplified formula is as follows:
σ R = µ RxWQ σ Q + µ RyWQ σ Q + µ RtWM σ M

x x y y t t
(2.6)
where
WQx = (σ R _ Qx + ρ QxQy σ R _ Qy + ρ Qx M t σ R _ M t ) / σ R (2.7)
WQ y = ( ρ QxQ y σ R _ Qx + σ R _ Q y + ρ Q y M t σ R _ M t ) / σ R (2.8)
— 45 —
WM 't = ( ρ Qx M t σ R _ Qx + ρ Qy M t σ R _ Qy + σ R _ M t ) / σ R (2.9)
The weighting factor can also be expressed in terms of the response ratio and wind
load correlation coefficient
⎛ σ R _ Qy ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞
1 + ρ Qx Q y ⎜ ⎟ + ρQ M ⎜ R _ Mt ⎟
⎜ σ R_Q ⎟ x t ⎜ ⎟
WQx = ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ σ R _ Qx ⎠ (2.10)
⎛ σ R _ Qy ⎞ ⎛ σ R _ M t ⎞ ⎛σ
2 2
⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ + 2 ρ Q Q ⎜ R _ Qy ⎟ +
⎜ σ R_Q ⎟ ⎜ σ R_Q ⎟ x y ⎜ ⎟
⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ σ R _ Qx ⎠
⎛ σ R _ Mt ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞⎛ σ ⎞
2 ρ Qx M t ⎜ ⎟ + 2 ρ Q M ⎜ R _ Qy ⎟⎜ R _ M t ⎟
⎜ σ R_Q ⎟ y t ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ σ R _ Qx ⎠⎝ σ R _ Qx ⎠
⎛ σ R _ Qy ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞
ρQ Q + ⎜ ⎟ + ρQ M ⎜ R _ Mt ⎟
x y ⎜ σ R_Q ⎟ y t ⎜ σ R_Q ⎟
WQy = ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ (2.11)
⎛ σ R _ Qy ⎞ ⎛ σ R _ M t ⎞ ⎛σ
2 2
⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ + 2 ρ Q Q ⎜ R _ Qy ⎟ +
⎜ σ R_Q ⎟ ⎜ σ R_Q ⎟ x y ⎜ σ R_Q ⎟
⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠
⎛ σ R _ Mt ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞⎛ σ ⎞
2 ρ Qx M t ⎜ ⎟ + 2 ρ Q M ⎜ R _ Qy ⎟⎜ R _ M t ⎟
⎜ σ R_Q ⎟ y t ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ σ R _ Qx ⎠⎝ σ R _ Qx ⎠
⎛ σ R _ Qy ⎞ ⎛ σ R _ Mt ⎞
ρQ M + ρQ M ⎜ t ⎜
⎟+⎜ ⎟
⎟ ⎜ σ R_Q ⎟
⎝ σ R _ Qx
x t y
WM t = ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ (2.12)
⎛ σ R _ Qy ⎞ ⎛ σ R _ M t ⎞ ⎛σ
2 2
⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ + 2 ρ Q Q ⎜ R _ Qy ⎟ +
⎜ σ R_Q ⎟ ⎜ σ R_Q ⎟ x y ⎜ ⎟
⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ σ R _ Qx ⎠
⎛ σ R _ Mt ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞⎛ σ ⎞
2 ρ Qx M t ⎜ ⎟ + 2 ρ Q M ⎜ R _ Qy ⎟⎜ R _ M t ⎟
⎜ σ R_Q ⎟ y t ⎜ σ R _ Q ⎟⎜ σ R _ Q ⎟
⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠⎝ x ⎠
From equation (2.10)~(2.12), it can be seen that the weighting factors for QX , QY and
M T depend on their correlations between each other and responses ratio between
each other but not the responses themselves. So by quantifying response ratio, the
weighting factors can be categorized into several groups, which makes this method
suitable for utilization in Codes.
After the weighting factors are established, the load combination of QX , QY and
M T can be established to get the equivalent static wind load for response R. The
— 46 —
formula used to express the equivalent pressure distribution which will produce peak
response for R can be expressed as
Pe = Pmean + WQ X ( PQ X )max + WQY ( PQY )max + WM T ( PM T )max (2.13)
Where, Pe is the equivalent pressure distribution or equivalent wind loads which will
produce the same static response as the peak response, Pmean is the mean pressure
distribution or mean wind loads, WQ X , WQY , and WM T are weighting factors obtained
from the above formula; ( PQ X ) max , ( PQY ) max and ( PM T ) max are the pressure distribution
when fluctuating QX, QY, and M T are maximum respectively or just the maximum
fluctuating wind loads. It should be noted that the subscript ‘max’ in the above
formulas means the maximum fluctuating value of QX, QY, and M T that happen in a
certain wind direction, not the maximum value without the consideration of wind
angle of attack. Table 2.17 lists the correlation coefficients between along-wind load
and across-wind load and torsional moment for WERFL building. Table 2.18 and
Table 2.19 list the rms value and mean of the along-wind, across-wind and torsional
moment coefficients for all the samples of WERFL building respectively.
2.6 Application of the Derived Equivalent Static Wind
Loads to the Assumed Frame System
The structure used for the application is as Figure 2.34 shows, the normal stresses in
the columns are calculated, the wind angles of attack are close to 0 º , so all the
samples with AOA in the range from -5º to +5º(0º~5º and 355º~360º) are selected.
To apply the derived formula, the weighting factors need to be determined. From
equation (2.10) to (2.12), we can see that the correlation coefficients of the three
forces and their corresponding response ratios need to be computed. The correlation
coefficients of along-wind, across-wind and torsional moment for each sample
selected can be calculated, and then correlation coefficients are ensemble averaged.
Table 2.17 lists the correlation coefficients for all the samples.
From the table, we can see that the correlation between along-wind and across-wind
loads, along-wind and torsional moment are very close to zero, while across-wind
loading and torsional moment have some correlation, for this case, the correlation can
be set to be -0.37.
— 47 —
Substituting ρQ X QY =0, ρQ X M T = 0 , ρQY M T = −0.37 to equation (2.10)~(2.12), the
weighting factors for along-wind and across-wind loading and torsional moment can
be expressed as:
1
WQ X = (2.14)
2 2
⎛σ ⎞ ⎛ σ R _ MT ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞⎛ σ R _ M T ⎞
1 + ⎜ R _ QY ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ − 0.74⎜ R _ QY ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎜σR_Q ⎟ ⎜ σR_Q ⎟ ⎜σR_Q ⎟⎜ σ R _ Q ⎟
⎝ X ⎠ ⎝ X ⎠ ⎝ X ⎠⎝ X ⎠
⎛ σ R _ QY ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ − 0.37⎜ R _ M T ⎟
⎜σR_Q ⎟ ⎜ σR_Q ⎟
WQY = ⎝ X ⎠ ⎝ X ⎠ (2.15)
2 2
⎛ σ R _ QY ⎞ ⎛ σ R _ MT ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞⎛ σ R _ M T ⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ − 0.74⎜ R _ QY ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎜σR_Q ⎟ ⎜ σR_Q ⎟ ⎜σR_Q ⎟⎜ σ R _ Q ⎟
⎝ X ⎠ ⎝ X ⎠ ⎝ X ⎠⎝ X ⎠
⎛σ ⎞ ⎛ σ R _ MT ⎞
− 0.37⎜ R _ QY ⎟+⎜ ⎟
⎜σR_Q ⎟ ⎜ σR_Q ⎟
WM T = ⎝ X ⎠ ⎝ X ⎠ (2.16)
2 2
⎛ σ R _ QY ⎞ ⎛ σ R _ MT ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞⎛ σ R _ M T ⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ − 0.74⎜ R _ QY ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎜σR_Q ⎟ ⎜ σR_Q ⎟ ⎜σ R_Q ⎟⎜ σ R _ Q ⎟
⎝ X ⎠ ⎝ X ⎠ ⎝ X ⎠⎝ X ⎠
For column one, C1, normal stress induced by along-wind loading FX can be
expressed as:
σ R _ Q = σ F H /( 2 D ) / Ac − σ F H / 8 / Z Y
X X X
(2.17)
And the normal stress induced by across-wind loading Fy can be expressed as:
σ R _ Q = σ F H /(2 B) / Ac + σ F H / 8 / Z X
Y Y Y
(2.18)
The normal stress induced by torsional moment Mz can be expressed as:
σ R _ M = −σ M DH /(16R 2 ) / ZY − σ M BH /(16R 2 ) / Z X
T T T
(2.19)
Where P is the ensemble averaged dynamic pressure for all the samples with AOA
close to zero.
So the corresponding response ratios in expression (2.14) to expression (2.16) are
σR_Q σ H /(2 B) / Ac + σ F H / 8 / Z X
= F
Y Y Y
(2.20)
σR_Q X
σ F H /(2 D) / Ac − σ F H / 8 / ZY
X X
— 48 —
σR_M − σ M DH /(16 R 2 ) / ZY − σ M BH /(16 R 2 ) / Z X
= T T T
(2.21)
σR_Q X
σ F H /(2 D) / Ac − σ F H / 8 / ZY
X X
Substituting σ FX = 98.36lb , σ FY = 119.40lb , σ MT = 746.51lb × ft , B=30ft, D=45ft,
H=13ft, R=27.042ft, ZX=ZY=0.2797ft3, Ac=0.4618ft2 into above expressions

(2.14)~(2.16), we can get the weighting factors:
WQ X = 0.5336 , WQY = −0.8208 , WM T = 0.4930 (2.22)
The peak normal stress in column one, C1 can be calculated by using the derived load
combination:
σ peak = ± gσ σ = ± 24.64 psi (2.23)
Compared to Table 2.11, the peak fluctuating tensile stress in C1 corresponding to

load case FX+FY+MT is 29.97psi, while the peak fluctuating compressive stress is -
32.17 psi. The difference between the estimated peak values and the actual peak
normal stresses maybe is due to average correlation coefficients assumed.
2.7 Conclusion Remarks
The actual extreme pressure distributions causing the maximum quasi-static load
effects on a low-rise building are conditionally sampled and the extreme pressure
distributions corresponding to maximum along-wind load, across-wind load and
torsional moment at the base of the building are compared.
A frame structure is assumed for the low-rise building, and it is found that the total
load effects of the six wind load components result in a maximum 30% increase of the
peak tensile stress in column members compared with case only applying the along-
wind load.
A formula of wind load combination has been derived, and the derived wind load
combination is applied to the assumed frame structure, the peak normal stresses
caused by the wind load combination are compared to the actual one. The method
provides an effective tool to investigate wind load combination suitable for inclusion
in Codes.
Reference
ASCE 7-02 (2002), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
ASCE, 2002
— 49 —
E. Simiu, F. Sadek, T. M. Whalen, S. Jang, etc. (2003), Achieving safer and more
economical buildings through database-assisted, reliability-based design for
wind, J. Ind. Aerodyn., 91, 1587-1611
J.D. Ginger, J. D. Holmes (2003), Effect of building length on wind loads on low-rise
buildings with a steep roof pitch, J. Ind. Aerodyn., 91 1377-1400
Levian M. L., K. C. Mehta (1992), Texas Tech field experiments for wind loads part I
building and pressure measuring system, 43(1-3), pp.1565
T. Stathopoulos (2003), Wind Loads on Low buildings: in the wake of Alan

Davenport’s Contributions, J. Ind. Aerodyn., 91, 1565-1585.
W. H. Melbourne (1975), Probability distributions of responses of BHP house to wind

action and model comparisons, J. Ind. Aerodyn., Vol.1, No.2, pp.167
G. Solari, L. C. Pagnini (1999), Gust buffeting and aeroelastic behavior of poles and
monotubular towers, J. Fluid Struct. Vol.13, pp.877
Y. Tamura, H. Kikuchi, K. Hibi (2001), Extreme Wind Pressure Distributions on

Low-rise Building Models, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamic, Vol. 89, pp.1635-1646
— 50 —
Table 2.1 Mean and standard deviation of the along-wind, across-wind and torsional moment
coefficients (AOA around 0º)
Mean Coefficients Standard Deviation Coefficients
AOA CX CY CT CZ CX CY CT CZ
355.2567 0.6444 0.1003 0.0038 0.4419 0.2472 0.1542 0.0619 0.1580
355.7948 0.6447 0.0940 -0.0044 0.4250 0.2339 0.1633 0.0644 0.1431
355.8156 0.6340 0.0891 -0.0062 0.4349 0.2092 0.1478 0.0579 0.1328
355.8889 0.6121 0.0940 0.0005 0.4571 0.1941 0.1152 0.0615 0.1096
356.3687 0.6677 0.0889 -0.0031 0.4657 0.2444 0.1601 0.0666 0.1619
356.4689 0.6362 0.1127 -0.0092 0.4838 0.2609 0.1841 0.0633 0.1642
356.6344 0.6291 0.0741 -0.0007 0.4971 0.1847 0.1936 0.0606 0.1140
357.0119 0.6578 0.0672 -0.0017 0.4262 0.2231 0.1461 0.0653 0.1344
357.4335 0.6666 0.0392 0.0020 0.4651 0.2494 0.2175 0.0668 0.1669
357.5329 0.6315 0.0662 0.0036 0.4436 0.2157 0.1440 0.0648 0.1252
358.0199 0.6905 0.0362 0.0005 0.4749 0.2578 0.2261 0.0638 0.1733
358.1373 0.6734 0.0343 0.0065 0.4958 0.2209 0.2712 0.0624 0.1429
358.2166 0.6317 0.0382 0.0025 0.4359 0.2240 0.1621 0.0680 0.1449
358.3164 0.6359 0.0500 -0.0058 0.4405 0.2231 0.1518 0.0645 0.1417
358.9301 0.7467 0.0279 0.0099 0.5604 0.2697 0.2972 0.0739 0.1984
359.5899 0.6490 0.0465 0.0001 0.4510 0.2175 0.2155 0.0637 0.1356
0.1296 0.6351 0.0016 0.0074 0.4393 0.2093 0.1249 0.0623 0.1235
0.3163 0.6332 -0.0059 0.0114 0.4306 0.2276 0.1528 0.0612 0.1366
0.5723 0.6459 -0.0252 0.0068 0.4510 0.2494 0.1536 0.0652 0.1577
2.1902 0.6375 -0.0393 0.0119 0.4537 0.2254 0.1509 0.0625 0.1469
3.3616 0.6816 -0.0689 0.0159 0.4787 0.2256 0.1640 0.0666 0.1385
4.0318 0.6985 -0.0881 0.0124 0.4938 0.2536 0.2812 0.0676 0.1790
4.3397 0.6440 -0.0672 0.0141 0.4613 0.2073 0.2534 0.0649 0.1367
4.4977 0.7116 -0.0686 0.0012 0.5194 0.2754 0.2595 0.0689 0.1861
4.5469 0.6690 -0.1051 0.0177 0.4626 0.2118 0.1729 0.0625 0.1328
5.0656 0.6399 -0.1059 0.0212 0.4630 0.2001 0.1614 0.0619 0.1190
— 51 —
Table 2.2 Maximum fluctuating along-wind, across-wind coefficients, torsional moment coefficients,
as well as lift force coefficient and their corresponding another three force coefficients (AOA round 0º)
Maximum CX Maximum CY
AOA CXmax CY CT CZ CX CYmax CT CZ
355.2567 1.1059 -0.4232 -0.0334 0.4350 0.6699 0.7280 0.0312 0.2439
355.7948 1.2309 -0.1632 0.0062 0.6758 0.4510 0.6464 -0.1664 0.3875
355.8156 1.0390 -0.0340 0.0017 0.4128 0.2689 0.6284 -0.0353 0.5311
355.8889 0.9704 0.1265 0.0511 0.4845 -0.1461 -0.4359 0.1893 0.0818
356.3687 1.1164 0.1575 0.2525 0.4533 0.3627 -0.6882 -0.0302 0.4548
356.4689 1.0184 0.4344 0.0040 0.2877 0.8676 0.7783 -0.0042 0.6414
356.6344 0.8326 0.5947 -0.1944 0.3962 0.6106 0.8416 0.0123 0.3723
357.0119 1.0821 -0.0099 0.0322 0.3706 -0.2024 0.6194 -0.0481 -0.0311
357.4335 1.6124 -0.1113 -0.2330 0.7724 0.7567 -0.9779 0.1054 0.4969
357.5329 0.9463 0.3573 0.0053 0.4358 0.5141 0.5752 -0.0866 0.2790
358.0199 1.1658 0.1605 0.1199 0.5153 0.4859 -1.0126 0.1594 0.5211
358.1373 0.9962 -0.6223 0.0990 0.5528 0.2707 0.8704 -0.0622 0.2629
358.2166 0.9302 0.2792 0.0276 0.4608 0.6044 0.7017 0.0164 0.3771
358.3164 1.0389 0.4366 0.1114 0.4138 0.6803 0.6808 0.0552 0.2068
358.9301 1.0310 -1.1089 0.2074 0.9828 0.9149 -1.4333 0.2443 0.9823
359.5899 0.9184 0.0246 0.0752 0.3817 -0.2810 -0.8154 0.2145 0.1602
0.1296 1.0264 0.3643 0.0001 0.3872 0.4312 -0.8693 0.0816 0.3878
0.3163 1.6583 0.6902 0.1882 0.8005 1.5232 0.7282 0.1850 0.6840
0.5723 1.0628 -0.4392 -0.1520 0.5683 0.2031 0.6360 -0.0449 0.1552
2.1902 1.0312 0.7539 0.0836 0.4450 0.7502 1.0170 0.0722 0.4245
3.3616 1.1194 -0.3328 0.1347 0.6322 0.2223 1.3199 -0.2423 0.3990
4.0318 0.8903 -0.0617 0.1190 0.3732 0.2112 -0.7185 0.0510 0.1847
4.3397 1.0986 0.1122 0.0197 0.5030 0.3555 -0.7662 0.1450 0.3851
4.4977 0.9989 0.3022 -0.0066 0.4195 0.2688 -0.6337 -0.0123 0.2908
4.5469 1.0061 0.2230 -0.0020 0.4930 0.0643 0.6238 -0.1679 0.0708
5.0656 0.9280 -0.2109 -0.0239 0.4168 -0.1474 0.6071 -0.0375 0.0813
— 52 —
Table 2.2(continued)
Maximum CT Maximum CZ
AOA CX CY CTmax CZ CX CY CT CZmax
355.2567 0.1455 -0.6471 0.2827 0.4057 0.9202 0.3265 -0.0101 0.5261
355.7948 0.9804 -0.1178 -0.3162 0.6856 1.0081 -0.1551 -0.2160 0.7736
355.8156 -0.0988 0.0289 -0.2206 -0.1358 0.2256 0.6207 -0.0598 0.5420
355.8889 0.4341 0.1084 -0.2619 0.1554 0.9704 0.1265 0.0511 0.4845
356.3687 0.5908 0.3447 -0.2984 0.2646 0.6684 -0.5490 -0.2418 0.6007
356.4689 0.2645 0.1064 -0.2860 0.1542 0.8575 0.7581 0.0189 0.6819
356.6344 0.2152 0.1738 -0.2341 0.2802 0.7038 0.6774 -0.1506 0.4789
357.0119 0.4503 0.1852 0.3670 0.2371 1.0078 0.1142 -0.0093 0.5508
357.4335 1.1882 -0.2615 -0.4649 0.6588 1.3224 -0.3062 -0.1883 0.8093
357.5329 0.4345 0.0046 0.3104 0.1870 0.9046 0.3379 0.0379 0.5691
358.0199 0.5424 -0.1126 0.2827 0.2969 0.5897 -0.9110 0.1844 0.6542
358.1373 0.1818 -0.1240 0.3221 0.0422 0.7207 -0.6982 0.0154 0.5849
358.2166 0.3646 -0.3658 0.2934 0.2512 0.8034 -0.2421 -0.1339 0.4836
358.3164 0.1536 -0.0410 -0.3039 0.0278 0.7377 0.2968 0.0312 0.5205
358.9301 0.7155 -1.3170 0.3476 0.9234 0.8481 -1.4009 0.2174 1.0275
359.5899 0.2069 0.2710 -0.2787 0.1833 0.4109 0.4839 -0.0392 0.4493
0.1296 0.6216 0.1040 -0.3179 0.3132 0.8420 0.0650 -0.0476 0.4841
0.3163 1.4289 0.3234 0.3137 0.6069 0.3947 -0.6616 0.0914 0.4853
0.5723 0.3293 0.0289 -0.3272 0.1056 1.0505 0.3458 0.0879 0.9297
2.1902 0.5173 -0.0734 -0.2803 0.1364 1.0628 -0.4392 -0.1520 0.5683
3.3616 0.2646 0.8178 -0.2876 0.2327 0.9151 0.9074 0.1464 0.5258
4.0318 0.4791 0.4875 -0.2786 0.2092 1.0957 -0.2799 0.0349 0.7081
4.3397 0.3690 -0.5373 0.3245 0.2688 0.7355 -0.4744 -0.0502 0.5132
4.4977 0.3888 0.0362 -0.2537 0.2004 1.0456 0.2062 -0.0602 0.6028
4.5469 0.3480 0.1676 -0.2683 0.1539 0.9921 0.2939 -0.0713 0.4588
5.0656 0.4441 -0.2321 0.2870 0.1738 0.7236 -0.1971 -0.1035 0.5117
— 53 —
Table 2.3 Mean and standard deviation of the along-wind, across-wind and torsional moment
coefficients (AOA around 90º)
Mean Coefficients Standard Deviation Coefficients
AOA CY CX CT CZ CY CX CT CZ
85.4797 0.48 0.10 0.02 0.53 0.16 0.19 0.10 0.14
85.4897 0.55 0.13 0.03 0.59 0.19 0.18 0.11 0.16
85.5346 0.46 0.14 0.01 0.51 0.15 0.14 0.09 0.13
85.5440 0.61 0.16 0.04 0.66 0.21 0.31 0.13 0.19
86.4494 0.64 0.15 0.04 0.70 0.23 0.26 0.13 0.19
86.6495 0.63 0.13 0.05 0.52 0.25 0.19 0.12 0.19
87.0289 0.61 0.07 0.01 0.65 0.21 0.23 0.13 0.17
87.1356 0.62 0.08 0.00 0.68 0.23 0.30 0.13 0.18
87.3489 0.48 0.10 0.02 0.50 0.16 0.15 0.10 0.14
87.8189 0.53 0.08 0.01 0.62 0.22 0.24 0.11 0.25
88.9611 0.53 0.08 0.01 0.56 0.19 0.15 0.11 0.20
89.0175 0.48 0.03 0.01 0.39 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.17
89.0326 0.68 -0.02 -0.01 0.73 0.23 0.25 0.13 0.20
89.5779 0.73 -0.05 0.00 0.77 0.29 0.27 0.16 0.25
89.8888 0.51 0.01 -0.02 0.57 0.16 0.21 0.10 0.13
90.3845 0.42 -0.07 0.01 0.46 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.12
90.7914 0.43 0.04 -0.01 0.45 0.17 0.19 0.09 0.15
90.7957 0.65 0.02 -0.02 0.71 0.23 0.32 0.13 0.19
Table 2.4 Maximum fluctuating along-wind, across-wind coefficients, torsional moment coefficients,
as well as lift force coefficient and their corresponding another three force coefficients (AOA around
90º)
Maximum CY Maximum CX
AOA CYmax CX CT CZ CY CXmax CT CZ
85.4797 0.77 -0.19 0.04 0.43 -0.25 -0.71 0.05 -0.06
85.4897 0.85 0.12 0.11 0.45 -0.62 0.75 -0.22 0.43
85.5346 0.62 -0.37 -0.20 0.23 -0.28 -0.54 0.26 0.12
85.5440 1.00 0.23 0.29 0.62 -0.21 -1.10 -0.09 0.15
86.4494 0.99 0.07 -0.30 0.75 0.02 -1.02 -0.03 0.19
86.6495 1.04 0.21 0.20 0.69 0.08 0.80 0.03 0.16
87.0289 0.91 0.06 0.10 0.49 -0.31 -0.87 -0.25 0.36
87.1356 1.31 0.42 0.18 0.81 -0.83 -1.00 -0.17 0.52
87.3489 0.66 -0.29 -0.07 0.46 -0.23 -0.51 0.04 0.11
87.8189 1.20 0.26 -0.38 1.03 -0.52 -1.11 0.08 0.79
88.9611 0.97 0.27 0.18 0.76 -0.32 0.61 -0.18 0.40
89.0175 0.68 0.19 0.16 0.58 -0.22 -0.73 -0.14 0.24
89.0326 1.13 -0.28 -0.06 0.75 -0.38 1.12 0.11 0.42
89.5779 1.59 0.00 -0.06 0.79 0.14 1.06 -0.05 -0.02
89.8888 0.89 0.19 0.07 0.47 -0.22 0.72 -0.16 0.14
90.3845 0.59 0.39 -0.22 0.34 -0.34 -0.57 -0.14 0.36
90.7914 0.75 0.20 -0.24 0.49 -0.30 0.71 -0.09 0.45
90.7957 1.00 -0.27 -0.45 0.39 -0.23 1.26 0.11 0.46
— 54 —
Table 2.4 (continued)
Maximum CT Maximum CZ
AOA CY CX CTmax CZ CY CX CT CZmax
85.4797 -0.23 -0.24 0.40 0.27 -0.66 -0.07 -0.08 0.60
85.4897 -0.13 0.07 -0.42 0.28 -0.59 0.53 -0.02 0.71
85.5346 -0.44 -0.41 0.42 0.35 -0.47 -0.39 0.41 0.43
85.5440 -0.28 -0.64 -0.55 0.06 -0.91 0.08 0.32 0.70
86.4494 -0.54 -0.18 0.54 0.39 -0.79 0.61 0.03 0.90
86.6495 -0.51 -0.20 0.63 0.37 -0.83 0.68 -0.13 0.72
87.0289 -0.61 -0.01 -0.62 0.25 -0.72 -0.08 0.13 0.66
87.1356 -0.62 -0.33 0.54 0.46 -1.29 0.27 0.20 0.85
87.3489 -0.08 0.26 -0.40 0.06 -0.47 0.04 0.30 0.57
87.8189 -0.68 -0.03 0.58 0.67 -1.03 0.02 -0.30 1.16
88.9611 -0.59 0.03 0.52 0.48 -0.93 0.28 0.20 0.79
89.0175 -0.28 -0.21 0.49 0.37 -0.63 0.05 0.18 0.67
89.0326 -0.45 -0.05 0.52 0.14 -1.03 -0.31 -0.04 0.79
89.5779 -1.38 -0.32 -0.60 0.92 -1.01 -0.34 -0.58 1.08
89.8888 -0.24 0.07 0.39 0.10 -0.80 0.20 0.05 0.50
90.3845 -0.32 0.12 -0.41 0.29 -0.24 -0.32 -0.14 0.71
90.7914 -0.35 -0.27 -0.39 0.18 -0.57 0.64 -0.13 0.53
90.7957 -0.83 -0.29 -0.54 0.43 -0.88 -0.43 -0.14 0.76
Table 2.5 The torsion coefficient of the four walls when AOA is close to zero
The mean torsion coefficient The rms torsion coefficient
AOA Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Wall 4 Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Wall 4
355.2567 -0.0135 0.1408 0.0060 -0.1371 0.0351 0.0608 0.0119 0.0639
355.7948 -0.0101 0.1436 0.0051 -0.1342 0.0350 0.0636 0.0130 0.0621
355.8156 -0.0066 0.1413 0.0055 -0.1340 0.0348 0.0532 0.0116 0.0649
355.8889 -0.0167 0.1389 0.0078 -0.1305 0.0319 0.0528 0.0107 0.0546
356.3687 -0.0094 0.1510 0.0045 -0.1430 0.0366 0.0680 0.0127 0.0717
356.4689 -0.0111 0.1367 0.0050 -0.1214 0.0378 0.0654 0.0126 0.0644
356.6344 -0.0079 0.1329 0.0030 -0.1273 0.0381 0.0579 0.0125 0.0620
357.0119 -0.0082 0.1510 0.0033 -0.1444 0.0351 0.0616 0.0125 0.0617
357.4335 -0.0056 0.1383 0.0012 -0.1359 0.0378 0.0661 0.0133 0.0693
357.5329 -0.0067 0.1410 0.0037 -0.1416 0.0349 0.0578 0.0122 0.0548
358.0199 -0.0054 0.1423 0.0018 -0.1392 0.0412 0.0687 0.0144 0.0722
358.1373 -0.0074 0.1305 0.0020 -0.1316 0.0386 0.0530 0.0135 0.0690
358.2166 -0.0044 0.1428 0.0017 -0.1426 0.0349 0.0589 0.0126 0.0605
358.3164 -0.0020 0.1490 0.0026 -0.1438 0.0378 0.0554 0.0129 0.0592
358.9301 -0.0070 0.1460 0.0020 -0.1508 0.0439 0.0770 0.0157 0.0772
359.5899 -0.0043 0.1317 0.0032 -0.1308 0.0357 0.0747 0.0132 0.0649
0.1296 -0.0002 0.1443 0.0005 -0.1520 0.0342 0.0565 0.0129 0.0583
0.3163 -0.0007 0.1390 0.0005 -0.1502 0.0340 0.0616 0.0131 0.0585
0.5723 0.0020 0.1436 -0.0029 -0.1496 0.0370 0.0620 0.0127 0.0678
2.1902 0.0033 0.1371 -0.0020 -0.1503 0.0340 0.0626 0.0129 0.0575
3.3616 0.0046 0.1381 -0.0041 -0.1546 0.0376 0.0645 0.0127 0.0583
4.0318 0.0077 0.1196 -0.0036 -0.1362 0.0419 0.0771 0.0146 0.0665
4.3397 0.0056 0.1139 -0.0004 -0.1332 0.0391 0.0761 0.0125 0.0636
4.4977 0.0090 0.1258 -0.0027 -0.1334 0.0404 0.0954 0.0140 0.0746
4.5469 0.0067 0.1278 -0.0052 -0.1470 0.0373 0.0592 0.0121 0.0524
5.0656 0.0061 0.1237 -0.0040 -0.1471 0.0342 0.0601 0.0113 0.0513
— 55 —
Table 2.6 The torsion coefficient of the four walls when AOA is close to zero
The torsion coefficient * The torsion coefficient **
AOA Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Wall 4 Total Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Wall 4 Total
355.2567 -0.0012 0.1995 0.0133 0.0711 0.2827 0.0202 -0.2512 -0.0075 -0.0065 -0.2450
355.7948 0.0968 -0.1008 -0.0118 0.3190 0.3031 -0.0695 -0.3992 0.0384 0.1141 -0.3162
355.8156 0.0617 -0.0903 0.0009 0.2424 0.2147 -0.0960 -0.0899 0.0154 -0.0500 -0.2206
355.8889 0.0573 0.1057 -0.0059 0.0678 0.2248 -0.0663 -0.2791 0.0148 0.0687 -0.2619
356.3687 0.0568 0.0108 -0.0231 0.2432 0.2878 -0.0912 -0.2945 -0.0040 0.0914 -0.2984
356.4689 0.0676 0.0501 -0.0287 0.1705 0.2595 -0.1373 -0.1962 -0.0015 0.0490 -0.2860
356.6344 0.0192 0.0586 -0.0093 0.1271 0.1956 -0.0387 -0.2578 0.0110 0.0515 -0.2341
357.0119 0.1470 0.0582 -0.0102 0.1720 0.3670 -0.0851 -0.2438 -0.0133 0.0656 -0.2766
357.4335 0.1073 -0.0585 0.0089 0.2192 0.2769 0.0045 -0.4679 0.0463 -0.0478 -0.4649
357.5329 0.0798 0.0582 -0.0321 0.2045 0.3104 -0.0726 -0.0935 -0.0264 -0.0340 -0.2264
358.0199 0.0820 -0.1212 -0.0072 0.3291 0.2827 -0.0675 -0.2678 0.0198 0.0344 -0.2812
358.1373 -0.0204 0.1688 -0.0204 0.1941 0.3221 -0.1143 -0.1341 0.0185 0.0035 -0.2265
358.2166 0.0895 -0.0143 0.0154 0.2028 0.2934 -0.0840 -0.2684 0.0272 0.0489 -0.2762
358.3164 0.1100 -0.0135 0.0017 0.2041 0.3023 -0.1589 -0.1531 0.0148 -0.0068 -0.3039
358.9301 -0.0445 0.3187 0.0242 0.0493 0.3476 0.0273 -0.1987 0.0114 -0.1280 -0.2880
359.5899 0.0531 0.0884 -0.0251 0.1523 0.2686 -0.0974 -0.1610 -0.0260 0.0057 -0.2787
0.1296 0.0577 -0.0113 -0.0151 0.2557 0.2870 0.0078 -0.3031 0.0385 0.0271 -0.2297
0.3163 -0.0076 0.1906 0.0524 0.0798 0.3152 -0.1052 -0.3162 0.0248 0.0788 -0.3178
0.5723 0.0288 0.0138 -0.0516 0.3227 0.3137 -0.0430 -0.1028 0.0173 -0.1816 -0.3101
2.1902 0.1059 -0.0409 0.0156 0.2285 0.3091 -0.1389 -0.1709 0.0167 -0.0342 -0.3273
3.3616 0.0868 0.0157 -0.0315 0.1829 0.2538 -0.0887 -0.1929 0.0150 -0.0137 -0.2803
4.0318 0.0944 0.0166 -0.0055 0.1653 0.2709 -0.0360 -0.0867 -0.0250 -0.1399 -0.2876
4.3397 0.0527 -0.1267 -0.0125 0.3358 0.2492 0.0435 -0.3543 -0.0135 0.0457 -0.2786
4.4977 0.0705 0.0776 0.0277 0.1487 0.3245 -0.0560 -0.2896 0.0130 0.0349 -0.2977
4.5469 0.0675 0.0472 0.0065 0.1173 0.2385 -0.0344 -0.1335 0.0030 -0.0888 -0.2537
5.0656 0.0264 -0.0189 0.0044 0.2290 0.2411 -0.0505 -0.2184 0.0211 -0.0206 -0.2684
Note: * the coefficients are corresponding to the total torsional coefficient is maximum, with mean extracted
** the coefficients are corresponding to the total torsional coefficient is minimum, with mean extracted
— 56 —
Table 2.7 Covariance of torsion coefficients of the four walls with along-wind Table 2.8 The covariance of torsion coefficients of the four walls with across-
load (AOA around 0º) wind load (AOA around 0º)
AOA W1&CX W2&CX W3&CX W4&CX
AOA W1&CY W2&CY W3&CY W4&CY
355.2567 0.0006 -0.0110 -0.0003 0.0115
355.2567 0.0023 -0.0009 -0.0009 -0.0031
355.7948 0.0014 -0.0106 -0.0001 0.0095
355.7948 0.0026 -0.0015 -0.0009 -0.0036
355.8156 0.0005 -0.0074 -0.0004 0.0093
355.8156 0.0025 -0.0006 -0.0007 -0.0037
355.8889 0.0008 -0.0065 -0.0005 0.0073
355.8889 0.0012 -0.0017 -0.0003 -0.0016
356.3687 0.0000 -0.0129 0.0002 0.0136
356.3687 0.0021 -0.0002 -0.0011 -0.0042
356.4689 0.0019 -0.0123 -0.0008 0.0101
356.4689 0.0035 -0.0023 -0.0011 -0.0037
356.6344 0.0006 -0.0068 -0.0004 0.0059
356.6344 0.0044 -0.0016 -0.0012 -0.0058
357.0119 0.0005 -0.0102 -0.0001 0.0102
357.0119 0.0018 -0.0010 -0.0007 -0.0029
357.4335 -0.0011 -0.0110 0.0010 0.0111
357.4335 0.0044 -0.0002 -0.0017 -0.0076
357.5329 0.0009 -0.0085 -0.0004 0.0080
357.5329 0.0021 -0.0028 -0.0005 -0.0017
358.0199 -0.0003 -0.0119 0.0003 0.0125
358.0199 0.0053 -0.0010 -0.0020 -0.0069
358.1373 -0.0004 -0.0066 0.0003 0.0076
358.1373 0.0063 -0.0002 -0.0025 -0.0117
— 57 —
358.2166 0.0003 -0.0095 0.0001 0.0100

358.2166 0.0018 -0.0016 -0.0010 -0.0037
358.3164 0.0007 -0.0085 -0.0004 0.0091
358.3164 0.0023 -0.0020 -0.0009 -0.0022
358.9301 -0.0010 -0.0102 0.0003 0.0131
358.9301 0.0078 -0.0077 -0.0031 -0.0079
359.5899 0.0012 -0.0116 -0.0006 0.0100
359.5899 0.0040 -0.0079 -0.0017 -0.0012
0.1296 -0.0005 -0.0086 0.0001 0.0094
0.1296 0.0011 -0.0016 -0.0006 -0.0022
0.3163 -0.0006 -0.0097 0.0001 0.0104
0.3163 0.0018 -0.0025 -0.0009 -0.0020
0.5723 -0.0001 -0.0111 0.0001 0.0136
0.5723 0.0023 -0.0012 -0.0008 -0.0035
2.1902 -0.0009 -0.0099 0.0005 0.0090
2.1902 0.0020 -0.0030 -0.0008 -0.0016
3.3616 0.0002 -0.0096 0.0000 0.0087
3.3616 0.0027 -0.0044 -0.0009 -0.0009
4.0318 -0.0010 -0.0100 0.0005 0.0101
4.0318 0.0074 -0.0087 -0.0025 -0.0055
4.3397 -0.0007 -0.0088 0.0001 0.0095
4.3397 0.0060 -0.0104 -0.0020 -0.0020
4.4977 -0.0008 -0.0169 0.0007 0.0153
4.4977 0.0056 -0.0122 -0.0019 0.0006
4.5469 -0.0013 -0.0065 0.0007 0.0068
4.5469 0.0029 -0.0036 -0.0011 -0.0016
5.0656 -0.0014 -0.0080 0.0007 0.0070
5.0656 0.0019 -0.0031 -0.0009 -0.0017
Note: the numbers following ‘W’ represent the wall number, wall2 and wall 4
Note: the numbers following ‘W’ represent the wall number
are side walls
Table 2.9 The covariance of torsion coefficients of the four walls with along-wind Table 2.10 Influence coefficients
and across-wind load (AOA around 0º) Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
N FxH/(2D) FyH/(2B) - Mx/(2B) -
AOA W13&CX W24&CX W13&CY W24&CY
Fz/4 My/(2D)
355.2567 0.0003 0.0005 0.0014 -0.0039
Qy -Fy/4 +MzD/(8R2)
355.7948 0.0013 -0.0011 0.0017 -0.0051
C1 Qx -Fx/4 -MzB/(8R2)
355.8156 0.0001 0.0020 0.0018 -0.0043
Mx FyH/8 -MzDH/(16R2)
355.8889 0.0003 0.0007 0.0010 -0.0033
My -FxH/8 -MzBH/(16R2)
356.3687 0.0003 0.0007 0.0010 -0.0044
Mz
356.4689 0.0011 -0.0022 0.0024 -0.0060
N - FyH/(2B) - Mx/(2B) My/(2D)
356.6344 0.0001 -0.0009 0.0032 -0.0074
FxH/(2D) Fz/4
357.0119 0.0004 0.0000 0.0011 -0.0039
Qy -Fy/4 -MzD/(8R2)
357.4335 -0.0001 0.0001 0.0027 -0.0078
C2 Qx -Fx/4 -MzB/(8R2)
357.5329 0.0004 -0.0005 0.0015 -0.0044
Mx FyH/8 +MzDH/(16R2)
358.0199 0.0000 0.0006 0.0032 -0.0079
My -FxH/8 -MzBH/(16R2)
358.1373 -0.0002 0.0010 0.0038 -0.0119
Mz
— 58 —
358.2166 0.0004 0.0005 0.0008 -0.0053

N - - - - My/(2D)
358.3164 0.0003 0.0006 0.0015 -0.0042
FxH/(2D) FyH/(2B) Fz/4 Mx/(2B)
358.9301 -0.0008 0.0028 0.0047 -0.0156
Qy -Fy/4 -MzD/(8R2)
359.5899 0.0005 -0.0016 0.0024 -0.0091
C3 Qx -Fx/4 +MzB/(8R2)
0.1296 -0.0003 0.0008 0.0005 -0.0038
Mx FyH/8 +MzDH/(16R2)
0.3163 -0.0005 0.0006 0.0009 -0.0045
My -FxH/8 +MzBH/(16R2)
0.5723 0.0000 0.0025 0.0015 -0.0047
Mz
2.1902 -0.0003 -0.0009 0.0012 -0.0046
N FxH/(2D) - - - -
3.3616 0.0003 -0.0009 0.0018 -0.0053 FyH/(2B) Fz/4 Mx/(2B) My/(2D)
4.0318 -0.0004 0.0001 0.0050 -0.0142 Qy -Fy/4 +MzD/(8R2)
4.3397 -0.0006 0.0008 0.0040 -0.0124 C4 Qx -Fx/4 +MzB/(8R2)
4.4977 -0.0001 -0.0016 0.0037 -0.0116 Mx FyH/8 -MzDH/(16R2)
4.5469 -0.0006 0.0003 0.0018 -0.0052 My -FxH/8 +MzBH/(16R2)
5.0656 -0.0008 -0.0009 0.0010 -0.0048 Mz
Note: the numbers following ‘W’ represent the wall number Note: the signs of all the internal forces are based on the global coordinate
system as shown in Figure 2.34.
Table 2.11 Peak normal stresses in column C1 (AOA close to zero) Table 2.13 Peak fluctuating normal stresses in column C1 (AOA close to zero)
Tensile stress(psi) Compressive stress(psi) Load Conditions Tensile stress (psi) Compressive stress (psi)
Load Conditions
Peak factor Peak factor ALL: Fx,Fy,Fz,Mx,My,Mz 30.10 -35.92
ALL: Fx,Fy,Fz,Mx,My,Mz 38.43 (3.52) -51.46 (2.28) Fx+Fy 32.91 -31.17
Fx+Fy 45.56 (2.55) -42.14 (2.62) Fx+Mz 21.82 -19.99
Fx+Mz 33.88 (1.81) -30.75 (1.84) Fy+Mz 23.41 -23.76
Fy+Mz 24.15 (--) -23.87 (--) Fx+Fy+Mz 29.87 -32.17
Fx+Fy+Mz 46.40 (2.59) -43.52 (2.87) Along-wind Fx only 19.54 -17.59
Along-wind Fx only 31.50 (1.66) -28.28 (1.66) Across-wind Fy only 20.79 -20.44
Across-wind Fy only 21.32 (--) -20.83 (--) Torsional moment Mz only 7.21 -7.21
Torsional moment Mz only 7.24 (--) -7.24 (--) ALL/Along-wind only (%) 154% 204%
ALL/Along-wind only (%) 122% 182%
Table 2.14 Peak fluctuating normal stresses in column C3 (AOA close to zero)
Table 2.12 Peak normal stresses in column C3 (AOA close to zero)
Load Conditions Tensile stress (psi) Compressive stress (psi)
Tensile stress(psi) Compressive stress(psi) ALL: Fx,Fy,Fz,Mx,My,Mz 29.99 -34.32
— 59 —
Load Conditions
Peak factor Peak factor Fx+Fy 31.17 -32.91
ALL: Fx,Fy,Fz,Mx,My,Mz 39.92 (2.95) -47.62 (2.50) Fx+Mz 19.50 -21.36
Fx+Fy 42.14 (2.62) -45.56 (2.55) Fy+Mz 20.63 -21.06
Fx+Mz 30.12 (1.82) -33.24 (1.79) Fx+Fy+Mz 27.97 -33.58
Fy+Mz 20.85 (--) -21.59 (--) Along-wind Fx only 17.59 -19.54
Fx+Fy+Mz 43.52 (2.87) -46.40 (2.60) Across-wind Fy only 20.44 -20.79
Along-wind Fx only 28.28 (1.66) -31.50 (1.66) Torsional moment Mz only 7.21 -7.21
Across-wind Fy only 20.83 (--) -21.32 (--) ALL/Along-wind only (%) 171% 176%
Torsional moment Mz only 7.24 (--) -7.24 (--)
ALL/Along-wind only (%) 141% 151%
Table 2.17 Correlation coefficients between along-wind load Fx, across-wind load
Table 2.15 Comparison of actual response of normal stresses by ASCE(Fig. 6-9) Fy, and torsional moment Mz (AOA around 0º)
CASE1 CASE2 CASE3 CASE4 Actual R. Err.* AOA Along and across Along-torsion Across-torsion
C1 27.20 20.41 49.33 38.65 51.46 -4.1% 355.2567 0.1502 0.0521 -0.2652
355.7948 0.2029 0.0155 -0.3231
C3 24.60 18.45 50.46 36.19 47.62 5.9% 355.8156 0.1257 0.1680 -0.2868
Note:* Error is the actual response with the maximum value of four 355.8889 0.3004 0.0868 -0.3325
cases. 356.3687 -0.0869 0.0609 -0.3117
356.4689 0.3644 -0.0664 -0.3113
356.6344 0.1685 -0.0715 -0.3544
Table 2.16 Comparison of actual response of normal stresses by ASCE(Fig. 6-10) 357.0119 0.0577 0.0313 -0.2934
357.4335 -0.2443 0.0026 -0.3524
Maximum normal stress Minimum normal stress 357.5329 0.2773 -0.0084 -0.3134
ASCE R. Actual R. perc. ASCE R. Actual R. perc. 358.0199 -0.0959 0.0348 -0.3218
C1 42.79 38.43 11.3% -23.75 -51.46 -53.8% 358.1373 -0.1101 0.0575 -0.4788
358.2166 -0.0090 0.0591 -0.4111
— 60 —
C3 39.31 39.92 -1.5% -26.04 -47.62 -45.3%

358.3164 0.2228 0.0589 -0.2764
358.9301 -0.1001 0.1030 -0.4962
359.5899 0.2631 -0.0759 -0.4885
0.1296 -0.1045 0.0362 -0.4281
0.3163 -0.0686 0.0137 -0.3848
0.5723 -0.1158 0.1517 -0.3181
2.1902 -0.0974 -0.0887 -0.3625
3.3616 0.0080 -0.0407 -0.3206
4.0318 -0.1830 -0.0193 -0.4865
4.3397 -0.0724 0.0091 -0.5116
4.4977 -0.0400 -0.0888 -0.4429
4.5469 -0.3830 -0.0236 -0.3151
5.0656 -0.2387 -0.1385 -0.3880
average 0.0074 0.0123 -0.3683
Table 2.18 rms value of the along-wind, across-wind and torsional moment (AOA Table 2.19 Mean value of the along-wind, across-wind and torsional moment
around 0º) (AOA around 0º)
AOA Along(lb) Across(lb) Torsion(lb-ft)
355.2567 106.0683 99.2517 717.8651 AOA Along(lb) Across(lb) Torsion(lb-ft)
355.7948 100.3597 105.0691 746.6338 355.2567 276.4519 64.5530 44.1803
355.8156 89.7657 95.0908 671.9573 355.7948 276.5824 60.4841 -50.8892
355.8889 83.2481 74.1594 714.0246 355.8156 272.0038 57.3647 -71.6506
356.3687 104.8605 103.0384 773.1532 355.8889 262.5887 60.4772 5.6377
356.4689 111.9427 118.4686 734.6763 356.3687 286.4224 57.2381 -35.3940
356.6344 79.2234 124.5949 703.1844 356.4689 272.9136 72.5374 -106.9104
357.0119 95.7178 94.0020 757.2697 356.6344 269.8901 47.6866 -8.4930
357.4335 106.9816 139.9360 775.3707 357.0119 282.1763 43.2326 -20.0006
357.5329 92.5544 92.6769 751.3499 357.4335 285.9661 25.2180 23.0960
358.0199 110.5831 145.4685 740.6679 357.5329 270.8999 42.6136 41.2864
358.1373 94.7447 174.5004 724.0367 358.0199 296.2381 23.2846 5.7964
358.2166 96.0985 104.2833 788.6363 358.1373 288.8955 22.0491 75.1938
— 61 —
358.3164 95.6917 97.6555 748.6183 358.2166 271.0065 24.5706 29.4122

358.9301 115.6929 191.2257 857.5635 358.3164 272.7944 32.1951 -67.5552
359.5899 93.2859 138.6720 739.1290 358.9301 320.3438 17.9362 114.6397
0.1296 89.7764 80.3914 722.4848 359.5899 278.4352 29.8974 1.2368
0.3163 97.6281 98.3323 709.4463 0.1296 272.4679 1.0332 86.3391
0.5723 106.9950 98.8336 756.0895 0.3163 271.6582 -3.7730 132.4350
2.1902 96.6828 97.0749 724.7545 0.5723 277.1223 -16.1962 79.0863
3.3616 96.7633 105.5163 772.6980 2.1902 273.4965 -25.2931 137.4718
4.0318 108.8065 180.9540 784.2259 3.3616 292.4317 -44.3563 185.0505
4.3397 88.9373 163.0745 752.9202 4.0318 299.6674 -56.7161 143.3921
4.4977 118.1546 167.0185 799.4115 4.3397 276.2887 -43.2678 163.0639
4.5469 90.8806 111.2453 725.0610 4.4977 305.2855 -44.1427 14.0491
5.0656 85.8626 103.8466 718.1271 4.5469 287.0073 -67.6500 204.5899
average 98.3579 119.3993 746.5137 5.0656 274.4969 -68.1451 246.3959
average 281.2897 12.0320 52.7485
— 62 —
Figure 2.1 WERFL building of Texas Tech University Figure 2.2 Pressure Tap Arrangement of WERFL Building
Figure 2.3 Mean pressure distribution at three pressure tap layers (AOA=0.1296º) Figure 2.5 Instantaneous wall pressure distributions causing maximum fluctuating
— 63 —
quasi-static along-wind base shear FDmax at three pressure tap layers (AOA=0.1296º)
Figure 2.4 Fluctuating pressure distribution at three pressure tap layers Figure 2.6 Instantaneous wall pressure distributions causing maximum fluctuating
(AOA=0.1296º) quasi-static across-wind base shear FLmax at three pressure tap layers (AOA=0.1296º)
Figure 2.7 Instantaneous wall pressure distributions causing maximum fluctuating Figure 2.9 Ensemble averaged mean wind pressure distributions at three pressure
quasi-steady base moment MTmax at three pressure tap layers (AOA=0.1296º) tap layers (AOA around 0º)
— 64 —
Figure 2.8 Instantaneous wall pressure distributions causing maximum fluctuating Figure 2.10 Ensemble averaged fluctuating wind pressure distributions at three
quasi-steady Lift Force at three pressure tap layers (AOA=0.1296º) pressure tap layers (AOA around 0º)
Figure 2.11 Ensemble averaged extreme fluctuating wind pressure distributions Figure 2.13 Ensemble averaged extreme fluctuating wind pressure distributions
causing maximum quasi-static along-wind base shear at three pressure tap layers causing maximum quasi-static torsional base moment at three pressure tap layers
(AOA around 0º) (AOA around 0º)
— 65 —
Figure 2.12 Ensemble averaged extreme fluctuating wind pressure distributions Figure 2.14 Ensemble averaged extreme fluctuating wind pressure distributions
causing maximum quasi-static across-wind base shear at three pressure tap layers causing maximum quasi-static lift force at three pressure tap layers (AOA around 0º)
(AOA around 0º)
Figure 2.15 Ensemble averaged mean wind pressure distributions at three pressure Figure 2.17 Ensemble averaged extreme fluctuating wind pressure distributions
tap layers (AOA around 90º) causing maximum quasi-static along-wind base shear at three pressure tap layers
— 66 —
(AOA around 90º)
Figure 2.16 Ensemble averaged fluctuating wind pressure distributions at three Figure 2.18 Ensemble averaged extreme fluctuating wind pressure distributions
pressure tap layers (AOA around 90º) causing maximum quasi-static across-wind base shear at three pressure tap layers
(AOA around 90º)
Figure 2.19 Ensemble averaged extreme fluctuating wind pressure distributions
causing maximum quasi-static torsional moment at three pressure tap layers (AOA Figure 2.21 The relationship between the maximum along-wind base shear CX and
around 90º) its simultaneously recorded across-wind base shear ratio CY/ CYmax and torsional
— 67 —
base moment ratio CT/CTmax, CZ/CZmax (AOA=0º).
Figure 2.20 Ensemble averaged extreme fluctuating wind pressure distributions

causing maximum quasi-static lift force at three pressure tap layers (AOA around 90 Figure 2.22 The relationship between the maximum across-wind base shear CY and
its simultaneously recorded along-wind base shear ratio CX/CXmax and torsional base
º) moment ratio CT/CTmax, CZ/CZmax (AOA=0º).
Figure 2.23 The relationship between the maximum torsional base moment CT and Figure 2.25 The relationship between the maximum along-wind base shear CY and
its simultaneously recorded along-wind base shear ratio CX/CXmax and across-wind its simultaneously recorded across-wind base shear ratio CX/CXmax and torsional
— 68 —
base shear ratio CY/CYmax, CZ/CZmax (AOA=0º). base moment ratio CT/CTmax, CZ/CZmax.(AOA=90º)
Figure 2.24 The relationship between the maximum torsional base moment CZ and Figure 2.26 The relationship between the maximum across-wind base shear CX and
its simultaneously recorded along-wind base shear ratio CX/CXmax and across-wind its simultaneously recorded along-wind base shear ratio CY/CYmax and torsional base
base shear ratio CY/CYmax, CT/CTmax (AOA=0º). moment ratio CT/CTmax, CZ/CZmax.(AOA=90º)
Figure 2.27 The relationship between the maximum torsional base moment CT and
its simultaneously recorded along-wind base shear ratio CY/CYmax and across-wind Figure 2.29a Cross-correlation coefficients between wind forces (AOA= 0.1297º)
— 69 —
base shear ratio CX/CXmax, CZ/CZmax.(AOA=90º)
Figure 2.28 The relationship between the maximum torsional base moment CZ and
Figure 2.29b Cross-correlation coefficients between wind forces (AOA= 0.1297º)
its simultaneously recorded along-wind base shear ratio CY/CYmax and across-wind
base shear ratio CX/CXmax, CT/CTmax.(AOA=90º)
(a) maximum along-wind base shear FDmax (b) Maximum across-wind base shear
FLmax
Figure 2.30a Cross-correlation coefficients between wind forces (AOA= 85.4797º)

— 70 —
(c) Maximum torsional base moment MTmax

Figure 2.31 Ensemble averaged extreme wind pressure distributions causing
maximum quasi-static load effects at the base (7H/8, α =1/4,154 samples)
0.9qh 0.5qh 0.3qh
0.8qz
WIND
AOA=0º
0.4qh
Figure 2.32(a) Full design wind pressure of CASE1 of ASCE(Figure 6-9)
Figure 2.30b Cross-correlation coefficients between wind forces (AOA= 85.4797º)
0.9qh
0.5qh 0.3qh
WIND
0.8qz
AOA=90º
0.5qh
Figure 2.32(b) Full design wind pressure of CASE1 of ASCE(Figure 6-9)
6
— 71 —
Figure 2.34 Frame model (Tamura, 2001)

1
2 3
WIND 4
2E 3E
1E 4E
5 2a,
Reference with
Corner Direction of MWFRS
a=4.5ft
AOA=0º
Figure 2.33 Pressure distribution based on ASCE7 (Figure 6-10) for calculation
Figure 2.35 Columns of the frame model (Tamura, 2001)
CHAPTER III
WIND INDUCED RESPONSES OF LOW-RISE
BUILDING
3.1 Introduction
The gust response factor method was originally introduced by Davenport (Davenport,
1967), and was utilized to treat wind loads on structures under the buffeting action of
wind gusts in most major codes and standards all around the world. In this method,
the effective static wind load is equal to the mean wind load multiplied by the gust
response factor.
In this chapter, the gust response factor method is investigated for low-rise buildings.
Gust response factor method is widely used for estimating equivalent static wind load.
In this scheme, the equivalent static wind loading used for design is equal to the mean
wind force multiplied by the GRF. Gust response factor is defined as the ratio of
maximum structural response in a certain time interval to mean structural response. It
is not hard to imagine that for different structural responses, different gust response
factors exist, which makes the corresponding equivalent static wind load variable.
Besides gust response factor method, other methods to study equivalent static wind
loads are also discussed in this chapter.
Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory (WERFL) of Texas Tech University is

used for estimation of wind loading effects and corresponding gust response factors
and some other factors, and a wind tunnel model of Tokyo Polytechnic University is
also utilized; WERFL building is a full scale building and the other one is a wind
tunnel model. The gust factors of responses of these two buildings under wind loading
are calculated respectively. And methods to investigate universal equivalent static
wind load are applied to both buildings too.
3.2 WERFL Building (Full scale building)
To investigate the wind induced responses in low-rise buildings, a frame system is

assumed for WERFL building, several critical sections along each frame will be
checked for internal axial force N, shear force Q, and bending moment M. All those
internal forces will be investigated under two wind angle of attacks(AOA), that is,
angle of attack close(AOA) to 0º and 90º. The frame system is shown in Figure 3.1.
— 72 —
For the full scale WERFL building, the pressure distribution characteristics such as
mean pressure distribution, fluctuating pressure distribution have been investigated in
Chapter II for angles of attack (AOA) around 0º and 90º. Under both angles of attack,
the pressure distributions coinciding with maximum along-wind force, across-wind
force, torsional moment, as well as lift force at the base of the building are also
studied.
To figure out a more reasonable wind load for wind resistant design, the traditional
gust response factor method is studied in detail for assumed frame structures of the
full-scale WERFL building.
3.2.1 Gust Response Factors
There are totally four across-wind frames considered for WERFL building, that is,
Frame A, B, C and D; For each of the frames, nine critical sections along frame are
investigated, and for each section, the axial force N, shear force Q and bending
moments M are calculated by using the pressure time histories of taps installed on the
frame. Since the WERFL building is a low rise building and has relatively high
rigidity, resonant responses can be ignored and the background responses are
calculated based on quasi-static theory.
The selected nine critical sections for each frame are shown in Figure 3.2. They are
the bottom point of left column(Number 1), middle point of left column(Number 2),
top point of left column(Number 3), quarter point of roof beam(Number 4), middle
point of roof beam(Number 5), three quarter point of roof beam(Number 6), top point
of right column(Number 7), middle point of right column(Number 8), bottom point of
right column(Number 9) respectively. Three kinds of support conditions, pin-pin,
pin-roller, fix-fix, are assumed for each frame. Figure 3.2 only shows support
condition pin-pin.
The mean and maximum dynamic axial forces N, shear forces Q, bending moments M
at those 9 critical sections of each frame are calculated and listed in Appendix I, and
gust response factors for those responses are also calculated and listed in Appendix I.
From those tables, it is noted that section 3, 5, 7 are the most critical sections at which
significant axial force N, shear force Q or bending moment M always happen. So for
simplicity, just internal forces at these 3 sections and corresponding gust factors of all
these frames are listed in Table 3.1~Table 3.4.
— 73 —
Table 3.1 lists the mean, absolute maximum responses with mean included, and
corresponding gust factor for Frame A with AOA around 0º. From this table, it can be
seen that the largest gust factor is 5.991, and smallest one 2.305. For Frame B with
AOA around 0º, the largest gust factor is 8.184, the smallest one 2.947. When AOA
is around 0º, the largest gust factor for Frame C is 9.389, the smallest one is 2.614;
the largest gust factor for Frame D is 6.404, smallest one is 2.333. It is noted that all
the largest gust factors of all the frames happen at critical section 3 for internal
moment M with support condition pin roller. The largest gust factor among all the
responses happen at Frame C, critical section 3 for internal moment M with support
condition pin roller.
When AOA is around 90º, internal forces at these three sections and corresponding
gust factors of all these frames are listed in Table 3.5~Table 3.8. The largest gust
factor for Frame A is 5.77, the smallest one is 2.87; for Frame B, largest value is
21.17, smallest one 2.63; For Frame C, largest one is 7.62, smallest one 2.29; the
largest gust factor for Frame D is 10.76, and smallest one is 3.05. It is needed to be
pointed out that all the largest gust factors happen at critical section 5 for shear force
Q with support condition pin roller. The large gust factors of 21.17 and 10.76 among
all the responses is due to the extremely small mean response of -1.11 and -1.94
respectively for internal shear force at critical section 5, Frame B and Frame C with
support condition pin roller. So actually, the large gust factors due to small mean
response are not really meaningful, and thus can be disregarded.
Since the gust response factors vary in a large range, it is hard to quantify a uniform
gust factor for all the internal forces, which is a limitation of gust response factor
(GRF) method. If the maximum gust response factor is set for the design gust
response factor, then for many structural responses, it will be too conservative.
However, if the average gust response factor is used, then some structural responses
will be underestimated by the assumed equivalent static wind load.
— 74 —
3.2.2 Comparison to responses calculated by
ASCE
3.2.2.1 ASCE (Figure 6-9)

For this frame system, wind loading cases in Figure6-9 in ASCE7-05 are applied.
Table 3.9 lists the responses calculated by four cases indicated in ASCE and the actual
responses of Frame C with support condition fix-fix and AOA=90º.
From Table 3.9, it can be seen that for some responses the results from ASCE are very
conservative while for some responses, they are not necessarily larger than actual
responses, which proves the inconsistency of ASCE.
3.2.2.2 ASCE (Figure 6-10)

For this frame system, wind loading cases in Figure6-10 in ASCE7-05 are also
applied. The pressure distribution based on ASCE is shown in Figure 3.5.
The pressure coefficients given by Figure6-10 of ASCE 7-05 in transverse Direction

(AOA=90º) are listed below:
a = 3.0 ft , h = 13.0 ft , qh = 2.019sf
z Zone 1: p = qh × ( +0.40 ) = + 0.808 psf
z Zone 2: p = qh × ( −0.69 ) = − 1.393 psf
z Zone 3: p = qh × ( −0.37 ) = − 0.747 psf
z Zone 4: p = qh × ( −0.29 ) = − 0.586 psf
z Zone 5 and 6: p = qh × ( −0.45 ) = − 0.909 psf
Similarly,
z Zone 1E: p = qh × ( +0.61) = + 1.232 psf
z Zone 2E: p = qh × ( −1.07 ) = − 2.160 psf
z Zone 3E: p = qh × ( −0.53) = − 1.070 psf
z Zone 4E: p = qh × ( −0.43) = − 0.868 psf
Based on the pressure coefficients listed above, the pressure distribution on Frame A,
B, C and D are shown in Figure 3.6.
The axial force, shear force and bending moment at critical section 3, 5, 7 of Frame
A,B,C and D with support condition fix-fix under the pressure distributions based on
ASCE7-05 are calculated and compared with actual responses at AOA=90 º
calculated by pressure time history, the results are listed in Table 3.10. It should be
noted that negative sign of percentage in the table means that ASCE underestimates
the responses.
— 75 —
From Table 3.10, it can be seen that almost all the response calculated from ASCE
pressure distribution are underestimated compared with the actual responses. For the
shear force at critical section 5 of Frame D, it is underestimated by almost 82.5%,
which proves that ASCE can not always give results conservatively.
3.2.3 Background Factors
Besides gust response factor (GRF) method, background factor (BF) is another way to
provide equivalent static wind loading. The background factor is used to define the
influence of loss of spatial correlation on the background response. It is defined as the
ratio of peak dynamic background response to that caused by gust loading envelop.
For high rise building, the gust loading envelop (Chen, 2003 ,2004) is the background
wind loading without any reduction due to loss of spatial correlation of wind loading,
which is equal to the standard deviation of dynamic loading along the building
height. And almost all the responses calculated by the gust loading envelop are
definitely larger than the actual dynamic responses since for high rise building, the
influence functions for almost all kinds of responses are simple and without sign
change.
For low-rise buildings, different structural responses may have dramatically different
influence lines, which are particularly complicated by their changes in sign over the
structure.
A uniform dynamic loading envelop for a given frame is defined as follows. The
value of a point pressure is taken as the larger pressure magnitude among actual
maximum and minimum dynamic pressures. Its sign is determined based on the first
POD mode. The pressure distributions on Frame A, B, C and D corresponding to the
defined gust loading envelope are plotted in Figure 3.7~Figure 3.10.
Table 3.11 ~Table 3.14 list the actual maximum dynamic responses , dynamic
responses under dynamic gust loading envelop, and corresponding background factors
of critical section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A, B, C and D with angle of attack(AOA) around
0 º . And the maximum dynamic responses, dynamic responses under gust loading
envelop and corresponding background factors for all the frames and all the critical
sections are listed in Appendix I.
— 76 —
From these tables, it can be seen that the largest background factor for Frame A is
1.47, and smallest one 0.42. For Frame B, the largest background factor is 2.09, the
smallest one 0.55. The largest background factor for Frame C is 1.93, the smallest one
is 0.31; the largest background factor for Frame D is 1.80, smallest one is 0.51.
When AOA is around 90 º , the maximum dynamic responses, dynamic responses

under gust loading envelop and corresponding background factors for all the frames
and all the critical sections are also listed in Appendix I. The pressure distributions on
Frame A, B, C and D corresponding to the defined gust loading envelope are plotted
in Figure 3.11~Figure 3.14.
Table 3.15~Table 3.18 list the actual maximum dynamic responses, dynamic
responses under dynamic gust loading envelop, and corresponding background factors
of critical section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B C and D with angle of attack(AOA) around
90º.
From these tables, the largest background factor for Frame A is 2.07, the smallest one
is 0.39; for Frame B, largest value is 32.17, smallest one 0.47; For Frame C, largest
one is 7.81, smallest one 0.38; the largest background factor for Frame D is 15.60, and
smallest one is 0.37. The large background factors of 32.17, 15.60 and 7.81 among all
the responses are due to the extremely small responses under the gust loading envelop.
So actually, the large background factors are not really meaningful, and thus can be
disregarded.
Because the background factors of low-rise building vary in a large range, so it also
may not be a good method to estimate equivalent static wind loading for low rise
building too.
Besides the defined gust loading envelop based on first POD mode, gust loading
envelop can also be defined according to mean pressure distribution. The value of a
point pressure on this kind of gust loading envelop is taken as the larger pressure
magnitude among actual maximum and minimum dynamic pressures. Its sign is
determined based on the mean pressure distribution.
Table 3.19 and Table 3.20 list the dynamic internal forces calculated by maximum
dynamic loading envelop based on mean sign at section 3, 5, 7. Table 3.21 and Table
3.22 list the corresponding background factors at section 3, 5, 7.
— 77 —
Dynamic internal forces and background factors of all the nine critical sections of
along-wind and across-wind frames are listed in Appendix I.
For high-rise building, the responses of interest are usually the shear force or bending
moment at the base of building or the top displacement, for which the influence
functions are usually simple without sign change, so the dynamic response calculated
by gust loading envelop is usually larger than the actual maximum dynamic response
and correspondingly, background factors are less than one; and by quantifying the
background factors, a simple expression of equivalent static wind loading which can
reproduce the same maximum dynamic response can be determined by multiplying
the gust loading envelop by background factor.
However for low-rise building, the responses of interest are usually the internal forces
in structure members, and the influence functions are usually very complicated with
sign change. The responses calculated by gust loading envelop based on mean
pressure sign or first POD mode sign are not always larger than actual dynamic
responses, so for low-rise building, gust loading envelop is no longer a convenient
concept and at mean time, background factors can’t be quantified easily. Thus another
method of describing equivalent static wind load needs to be proposed.
3.3 Wind Tunnel Model in Tokyo Polytechnic University
3.3.1 Gust Factors
A wind tunnel model with L:B:H 1:1:1(20cmX20cmX20cm) is tested in Tokyo

Polytechnic University. There are 500 pressure taps uniformly distributed around the
building surface. The power law index of the wind velocity profile is 1/4; length scale
is 1/250. The sampling interval is 0.00128s, there are total 32768 data points in the
pressure time history, which means the total sampling time is about 41 second.
The tap location is shown in Figure 3.3. Since this wind tunnel model is a cubic model,
for a single angle of attack, frames in two directions (along-wind and across-wind
directions) can be assumed and studied for wind induced internal effects, which is
different from the rectangular WERFL building for which frames in one direction are
studied under two angles of attack(0 º and 90 º ). Three across-wind frames (in x
direction) and three along-wind frames (in y direction) are assumed as members for
investigation for the wind tunnel model. Nine critical sections with the same locations
— 78 —
as the WERFL building along each frame are checked for axial force, shear force and
bending moment. Totally there are three support conditions assumed for all the frames,
that is, pin-roller, pin-pin, and fix-fix.
The assumed frame arrangement of this wind tunnel model is shown in Figure 3.4.
The axial force, shear force and bending moment at these 9 critical sections are
calculated by wind-induced pressure measured in pressure taps along the frames. All
responses of these nine critical sections are listed in Appendix I. From these tables, it
can be seen that responses of critical section 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 are critical. So Table
3.23~Table 3.28 list the mean, maximum dynamic internal forces of section 1, 3, 5, 7,
9 for Across Frame and Along Frame A, B, C and corresponding gust response factors
respectively.
From these tables, it can be seen that some very large gust response factors are
obtained due to extreme small mean response. It is reasonable to disregard this kind of
gust response factors as has been discussed for WERFL building.
The largest gust factor for Across Frame A is 6.58, the smallest one is 2.16; for
Across Frame B, largest value is 9.22, smallest one 2.90; For Across Frame C, largest
one is 12.40, smallest one 3.36.It is needed to be pointed out that all the largest gust
factors happen at critical section 1 or critical section 9 for bending moment M with
support condition fix-fix.
For Along Frame A, the largest gust factor is 13.26 and smallest is 2.82. For Along
Frame B, largest value is 13.67, smallest one 2.52; For Along Frame C, largest one is
10.59, smallest one 2.52. Some extreme large gust response factors due to small mean
responses have been neglected.
As has been discussed for WERFL building, for the wind tunnel model, the gust
response factors also vary in a large range, it is hard to quantify a uniform gust factor
for all the internal forces.
3.3.2 Background Factors
Table 3.29~Table 3.34 list the maximum dynamic internal forces, and responses
under the gust loading envelop based on first POD mode of section 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 for
Across Frame A, B, C and Along Frame A, B, C and corresponding background
factors respectively.
— 79 —
For Across Frame A, there are four large background factors obtained due to very
small responses calculated by gust loading envelope. Except those irregular values,
the largest background factor is 1.88, the smallest one is 0.46. For Across Frame B,
because of the small responses calculated by gust loading envelop, there are several
background factors much larger than 1, as has been discussed, this kind of factors can
be neglected. And the largest background factor is 1.57, the smallest one 0.54. For
Across Frame C, except some large background factors, the largest value is 2.05,
smallest one 0.42.
As far as Along frame A, B, C, excepts some very large background factors, the
largest background factors for Along Frame A, B, C are 1.95, 1.73, 1.88 respectively;
the smallest background factors for Frame A, B, and C are 0.50, 0.57, 0.60
respectively.
As has been discussed for WERFL building, the responses calculated by gust loading
envelop based on first POD mode sign are not always larger than actual dynamic
responses, so it is proved that for low-rise building, gust loading envelop is no longer
a convenient concept and at mean time, background factors can’t be quantified easily.
Thus another method of describing equivalent static wind load needs to be proposed.
3.4 Background Factors Based on Four Gust Loading
Envelops of WERFL Building
For WERFL building, at AOA around 0º, the building frames are under across-wind
excitation and at AOA around 90 º , the building frames are under along-wind
excitation.
From the discussion of background factors of WERFL building, it can been seen that
background factors of frames based on first POD mode under along-wind excitation
are less sensitive to specific response than those calculated under across-wind
excitation, which means that when angle of attack is close to 0o, background factors of
different responses vary in a range narrower than those when angle of attack is close
to 90º. This may be due to the fact that in the case of along-wind excitation, the
pressure distribution causing peak dynamic response usually follow the first POD
mode which has the same direction as mean pressure distribution around the building,
while in the case of across-wind excitation, the pressure distribution causing peak
— 80 —
dynamic response is very different from the first POD mode or the mean pressure
distribution.
Base on the above discussion, it is necessary to give a more reasonable gust loading
envelop (GLE) and background factor (BF) definition. Four gust loading envelops can
be provided for across-wind excitations, and those gust loading envelops are defined
as those proposed by Chen. The gust loading envelope 1 and 2 are featured by the
minimum (negative peak) pressure on wall two and maximum (positive peak)
pressures on wall four, but with negative peak pressures on the roof for envelope 1
and positive peak pressures on the roof for envelope 2. The gust loading envelops 3
and 4 are characterized by the positive peak pressures on wall two and negative peak
pressures on wall four but with negative peak pressures on the roof for envelope 3 and
positive peak pressures on the roof for envelope 4. The pressure distributions on
Frame A, B, C and D corresponding to all the four gust loading envelopes at AOA=0o
and AOA=90º are plotted in Figure 3.15~Figure 3.46.
The responses under the action of all the four gust loading envelopes can be
calculated and the maximum responses can be used for the determination of
corresponding background factors, it should be noted that the background factor is
defined as the ratio of the actual peak dynamic response to the maximum response
calculated by one corresponding gust loading envelope. The maximum responses and
corresponding background factors are listed in Table 3.35 and Table 3.37 for AOA =
0 º ; and for AOA=90 º , the maximum responses and corresponding background
factors of section 3, 5 and 7 are listed in Table 3.36 and Table 3.38. From Table 3.37,
it can be seen that the background factors are less sensitive to specific response
compared to the background factors calculated based on first POD mode as shown in
Table 3.11 ~Table 3.14 at AOA=0º, that is, under the across-wind excitation. For
AOA=90º, or under the action of along-wind excitation, comparison between Table
3.38 and Table 3.15~Table 3.18 will give the same conclusion about the background
factors, and the background factors based on the four gust loading envelopes are
usually not larger than 1 as those calculated by gust loading envelop based on first
POD mode.
These results illustrated that using gust loading envelope combined with the
background factor as suggested by GLE approach can result in accurate and
— 81 —
convenient modeling of across-wind loads on low-rise buildings if reasonable gust
loading envelopes are used.
3.5 Concluding remarks
In this chapter, the wind induced responses in a frame system of WERFL building and
a wind tunnel model are studied. The calculated wind induced responses include mean
responses, maximum dynamic responses and dynamic responses under the action of
gust loading envelop. Corresponding gust response factor and background factors are
also calculated. From the calculation results it can be seen that these factors vary in a
large range, which gives a clear review of the limitation of gust response factor (GRF)
method and background factor (BF) method. Based on the traditional background
factor (BF) method involving only one gust loading envelope, background factor
method calculated by four different gust loading envelopes is proposed, the
background factors are less sensitive to specific response than those calculated by a
unique gust loading envelope and unusually large values will not arise in these
background factors which prove that background factor method is efficient if
reasonable gust loading envelopes are used.
Reference
X. Chen, A. Kareem (2003), Equivalent static wind loads on structures, Proceedings

of the 11th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Lubbock, TX, June2-
5,2003
X. Chen, A. Kareem (2004), Equivalent static wind loads on buildings: New Model,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.130, No.10, pp.1425
Davenport, A.G. (1967), Gust Loading Factors, J. Struct. Eng. Div. ASCE, Vol.93,
pp.11-34
— 82 —
Table 3.1 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame A, (AOA=0º)
Pin-roller Pin-pin Fix-fix

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 63.546 -32.657 201.835 66.018 -36.326 249.680 62.987 -42.278 249.535
Mean response
5 32.657 -7.411 -251.674 36.326 -7.411 -203.830 42.278 -7.940 -196.051
(lb, lb-ft)
7 64.032 32.657 180.736 64.032 36.326 228.581 64.561 42.278 244.262
Actual Absolute 3 180.760 -114.521 1209.229 184.364 -83.744 738.803 179.956 -99.222 642.293
Maximum Total response 5 114.521 -41.895 -944.359 83.744 -41.895 -562.917 99.222 -37.379 -538.964
(lb, lb-ft) 7 180.883 114.521 796.817 180.883 83.744 658.289 185.540 99.222 611.073
3 2.845 3.507 5.991 2.793 2.305 2.959 2.857 2.347 2.574
Gust Factor with larger
5 3.507 5.653 3.752 2.305 5.653 2.762 2.347 4.708 2.749
—
absolute value
7 2.825 3.507 4.409 2.825 2.305 2.880 2.874 2.347 2.502
83 —
Table 3.2 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame B, (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 58.262 -40.196 202.035 62.024 -42.662 234.345 58.995 -47.221 251.698
Mean response
5 40.196 -10.879 -248.422 42.662 -10.879 -216.113 47.221 -10.120 -210.176
(lb, lb-ft)
7 60.086 40.196 231.219 60.086 42.662 263.528 59.327 47.221 258.031
Actual Absolute 3 175.201 -156.477 1653.481 183.597 -128.288 976.448 177.272 -139.152 771.122
(lb, lb-ft) 7 182.548 156.477 900.225 182.548 128.288 1001.960 181.417 139.152 784.499
3 3.007 3.893 8.184 2.960 3.007 4.167 3.005 2.947 3.064
5 3.893 6.294 5.829 3.007 6.294 3.165 2.947 5.100 3.146
absolute value
7 3.038 3.893 3.893 3.038 3.007 3.802 3.058 2.947 3.040
Table 3.3 Mean, Maximum Responses and Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame C, (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 24.675 -21.317 113.144 26.578 -20.255 99.474 24.853 -21.509 103.969
Mean response
5 21.317 -4.191 -70.548 20.255 -4.191 -84.218 21.509 -4.001 -82.595
(lb, lb-ft)
7 26.286 21.317 121.030 26.286 20.255 107.360 26.096 21.509 106.102
Actual Absolute 3 76.213 -92.922 1062.288 78.022 -54.779 484.305 74.218 -56.217 304.698
(lb, lb-ft) 7 76.844 92.922 533.185 76.844 54.779 480.025 74.569 56.217 304.249
3 3.089 4.359 9.389 2.936 2.704 4.869 2.986 2.614 2.931
5 4.359 7.663 8.658 2.704 7.663 3.095 2.614 5.467 3.054
absolute value
7 2.923 4.359 4.405 2.923 2.704 4.471 2.857 2.614 2.868
—
84 —
Table 3.4 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factor of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame D, (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 15.859 -8.966 43.420 16.693 -10.551 64.077 16.125 -12.106 70.212
Mean response
5 8.966 -3.616 -82.329 10.551 -3.616 -61.671 12.106 -3.343 -59.641
(lb, lb-ft)
7 16.930 8.966 53.695 16.930 10.551 74.352 16.657 12.106 72.272
Actual Absolute 3 37.936 -28.613 278.040 39.528 -24.808 195.198 38.363 -28.247 173.262
(lb, lb-ft) 7 40.777 28.613 168.564 40.777 24.808 207.244 41.003 28.247 174.360
3 2.392 3.191 6.404 2.368 2.351 3.046 2.379 2.333 2.468
5 3.191 3.662 3.258 2.351 3.662 2.490 2.333 3.087 2.479
absolute value
7 2.409 3.191 3.139 2.409 2.351 2.787 2.462 2.333 2.413
Table 3.5 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame A, (AOA=90º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 34.45 -7.61 67.43 34.91 -10.46 104.59 34.32 -13.22 106.52
Mean response
5 7.61 -4.81 -117.22 10.46 -4.81 -80.06 13.22 -4.93 -76.45
(lb, lb-ft)
7 19.24 7.61 44.84 19.24 10.46 82.00 19.36 13.22 87.27
Actual Absolute 3 107.82 -26.65 389.39 106.90 -30.33 360.82 105.40 -37.98 326.08
(lb, lb-ft) 7 57.24 26.65 182.78 57.24 30.33 306.37 58.03 37.98 271.45
3 3.13 3.50 5.77 3.06 2.90 3.45 3.07 2.87 3.06
5 3.50 5.39 3.97 2.90 5.39 3.40 2.87 4.82 3.38
absolute value
7 2.97 3.50 4.08 2.97 2.90 3.74 3.00 2.87 3.11
—
85 —
Table 3.6 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame B, (AOA=90º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 55.41 -15.29 313.79 52.75 -9.26 235.37 50.07 -15.55 163.87
Mean response
5 15.29 -1.11 -35.46 9.26 -1.11 -113.88 15.55 -6.42 -105.63
(lb, lb-ft)
7 18.63 15.29 89.51 18.63 9.26 11.09 23.94 15.55 99.08
Actual Absolute 3 145.70 -41.23 937.30 137.75 -30.36 657.25 133.45 -41.78 453.35
(lb, lb-ft) 7 54.95 41.23 242.87 54.95 30.36 -229.19 63.87 41.78 296.53
3 2.63 2.70 2.99 2.61 3.28 2.79 2.67 2.69 2.77
5 2.70 21.17 10.84 3.28 21.17 3.15 2.69 4.88 3.17
absolute value
7 2.95 2.70 2.71 2.95 3.28 -20.66 2.67 2.69 2.99
Table 3.7 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame C, (AOA=90º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 60.48 -14.57 307.88 57.96 -10.26 251.93 55.34 -17.26 184.44
Mean response
5 14.57 -2.70 -74.48 10.26 -2.70 -130.44 17.26 -7.80 -121.26
(lb, lb-ft)
7 21.11 14.57 85.38 21.11 10.26 29.43 26.21 17.26 115.26
Actual Absolute 3 152.82 -34.83 931.46 144.07 -27.56 683.69 137.94 -39.55 468.13
(lb, lb-ft) 7 53.97 34.83 205.79 53.97 27.56 195.15 62.69 39.55 290.10
3 2.53 2.39 3.03 2.49 2.69 2.71 2.49 2.29 2.54
5 2.39 7.62 5.04 2.69 7.62 2.74 2.29 3.95 2.74
absolute value
7 2.56 2.39 2.41 2.56 2.69 6.63 2.39 2.29 2.52
—
86 —
Table 3.8 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame D, (AOA=90º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 25.05 -8.56 75.77 25.28 -8.89 80.05 24.58 -10.56 75.55
Mean response
5 8.56 -1.94 -61.10 8.89 -1.94 -56.82 10.56 -2.39 -54.64
(lb, lb-ft)
7 14.83 8.56 50.05 14.83 8.89 54.33 15.28 10.56 63.20
Actual Absolute 3 81.35 -28.19 360.44 80.58 -27.10 302.93 80.19 -33.97 274.13
(lb, lb-ft) 7 48.40 28.19 186.95 48.40 27.10 238.38 48.89 33.97 228.14
3 3.25 3.29 4.76 3.19 3.05 3.78 3.26 3.22 3.63
5 3.29 10.76 6.08 3.05 10.76 4.08 3.22 8.52 4.05
absolute value
7 3.26 3.29 3.74 3.26 3.05 4.39 3.20 3.22 3.61
Table 3.9 Comparison between responses of Frame C calculated from ASCE (Figure 6-9) with actual responses
3 5 7
N Q M Q M Q M
CASE1-AOA=90 -32.46 -66.99 -173.57 13.03 198.34 50.84 -316.11
CASE2-AOA=90 -24.34 -50.11 -128.14 9.91 148.76 38.26 -239.12
CASE3 -55.32 -116.13 -374.19 13.03 366.25 99.98 -516.74
CASE4 -41.50 -77.68 -139.46 19.19 274.69 84.40 -528.76
Actual R. 137.94 -39.55 468.13 -30.81 -332.33 39.55 290.10
Err.* -59.9% 193.6% -20.1% -37.7% 10.2% 152.8% 82.3%
Note:* Error is the actual response with the maximum value of four cases
Table 3.10 Comparison between responses calculated from ASCE and actual responses
—
N(lb) Q(lb) M(lb.ft)

87 —
Point
ASCE R. Actual R. perc. ASCE R. Actual R. perc. ASCE R. Actual R. perc.
3 81.03 105.40 -23.1% -27.95 -37.98 -26.4% 334.70 326.08 2.6%
Frame
5 27.95 37.98 -26.4% -6.46 -23.75 -72.8% -224.57 -258.30 -13.1%
A
7 49.79 58.03 -14.2% 27.95 37.98 -26.4% 197.27 271.45 -27.3%
3 96.72 133.45 -27.5% -34.12 -41.78 -18.3% 404.52 453.35 -10.8%
Frame
5 34.12 41.78 -18.3% -6.50 -31.33 -79.3% -272.11 -334.55 -18.7%
B
7 61.85 63.87 -3.2% 34.12 41.78 -18.3% 240.50 296.53 -18.9%
3 96.72 137.94 -29.9% -34.12 -39.55 -13.7% 404.52 468.13 -13.6%
Frame
5 34.12 39.55 -13.7% -6.50 -30.81 -78.9% -272.11 -332.33 -18.1%
C
7 61.85 62.69 -1.3% 34.12 39.55 -13.7% 240.50 290.10 -17.1%
3 52.86 80.19 -34.1% -18.65 -33.97 -45.1% 221.10 274.13 -19.3%
Frame
5 18.65 33.97 -45.1% -3.55 -20.33 -82.5% -148.73 -221.14 -32.7%
D
7 33.81 48.89 -30.9% 18.65 33.97 -45.1% 131.46 228.14 -42.4%
Table 3.11 Dynamic Responses and Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame A, (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
Actual Absolute Maximum 3 117.214 -81.864 1007.394 118.347 -47.418 489.123 116.969 -56.944 392.758
Dynamic response 5 81.864 -34.484 -692.685 47.418 -34.484 -359.087 56.944 -29.440 -342.913
(lb, lb-ft) 7 116.850 81.864 616.081 116.850 47.418 429.708 120.979 56.944 366.811
Dynamic response under gust 3 -205.68 119.35 -827.91 -213.67 113.85 -756.77 -203.39 126.94 -740.80
loading envelop based on first 5 -119.35 23.47 508.34 -113.85 23.47 579.48 -126.94 25.68 562.42
POD pressure sign (lb, lb-ft) 7 -201.94 -119.35 -729.86 -201.94 -113.85 -658.72 -204.15 -126.94 -708.78
3 -0.57 -0.69 -1.22 -0.55 -0.42 -0.65 -0.58 -0.45 -0.53
Background Factor at critical
5 -0.69 -1.47 -1.36 -0.42 -1.47 -0.62 -0.45 -1.15 -0.61
points
7 -0.58 -0.69 -0.84 -0.58 -0.42 -0.65 -0.59 -0.45 -0.52
—
Table 3.12 Dynamic Responses and Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame B, (AOA=0º)
88 —

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
(lb, lb-ft) 7 122.462 116.281 669.006 122.462 85.627 738.432 122.090 91.931 526.468
3 -0.62 -0.73 -1.77 -0.61 -0.56 -0.97 -0.63 -0.55 -0.67
5 -0.73 -2.07 -2.09 -0.56 -2.07 -0.75 -0.55 -1.47 -0.74
points
7 -0.65 -0.73 -0.84 -0.65 -0.56 -0.99 -0.65 -0.55 -0.69
Table 3.13 Dynamic Responses and Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame C, (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
Dynamic response 5 71.605 -27.923 590.349 34.524 -27.923 -176.477 34.709 -17.872 -169.618
(lb, lb-ft) 7 50.558 71.605 412.155 50.558 34.524 372.665 48.473 34.709 198.147
3 -0.41 -0.67 -1.93 -0.39 -0.33 -0.81 -0.39 -0.31 -0.40
5 -0.67 -1.49 1.54 -0.33 -1.49 -0.44 -0.31 -1.00 -0.43
points
7 -0.40 -0.67 -0.77 -0.40 -0.33 -0.72 -0.39 -0.31 -0.39
—
89 —
Table 3.14 Dynamic Responses and Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame D, (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
(lb, lb-ft) 7 23.847 19.647 114.869 23.847 14.257 132.892 24.346 16.140 102.089
3 -0.66 -0.71 -1.80 -0.64 -0.51 -0.97 -0.66 -0.54 -0.73
5 -0.71 -1.77 -1.56 -0.51 -1.77 -0.81 -0.54 -1.33 -0.79
points
7 -0.65 -0.71 -0.84 -0.65 -0.51 -0.94 -0.67 -0.54 -0.72
Table 3.15 Dynamic Responses and Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame A, (AOA=90º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
(lb, lb-ft) 7 38.00 19.04 137.94 38.00 19.86 224.37 38.67 24.77 184.18
Dynamic response under gust 3 142.66 -27 155.64 148.45 -47.38 420.71 144.77 -59.18 468.68
loading envelop based on first 5 27 -21.74 -625.78 47.38 -21.74 -360.71 59.18 -19.56 -345.25
POD pressure sign (lb, lb-ft) 7 96.82 27 164.9 96.82 47.38 429.96 94.64 59.18 412.89
3 0.51 0.71 2.07 0.49 0.42 0.61 0.49 0.42 0.47
5 0.71 0.97 0.56 0.42 0.97 0.53 0.42 0.96 0.53
points
7 0.39 0.71 0.84 0.39 0.42 0.52 0.41 0.42 0.45
—
90 —
Table 3.16 Dynamic Responses and Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame B, (AOA=90º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
(lb, lb-ft) 7 36.32 25.93 153.35 36.32 21.10 -240.28 39.92 26.23 197.44
Dynamic response under gust 3 190.11 -28.82 1054.77 180.95 -17.02 900.99 169.23 -42.89 622.48
loading envelop based on first 5 28.82 -1.45 -302.44 17.02 -1.45 -456.22 42.89 -22.25 -422.24
POD pressure sign (lb, lb-ft) 7 66.91 28.82 161.25 66.91 17.02 7.47 87.71 42.89 353.91
3 0.48 0.90 0.59 0.47 1.24 0.47 0.49 0.61 0.47
5 0.90 15.42 1.15 1.24 15.42 0.54 0.61 1.12 0.54
points
7 0.54 0.90 0.95 0.54 1.24 -32.17 0.46 0.61 0.56
Table 3.17 Dynamic Responses and Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame C, (AOA=90º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
(lb, lb-ft) 7 32.87 20.26 120.41 32.87 17.29 -199.66 36.47 22.29 174.84
Dynamic response under gust 3 207.21 -28.06 1019.77 198.02 -23.99 966.61 186.93 -52.98 701.76
loading envelop based on first 5 28.06 -3.22 -468.38 23.99 -3.22 -521.54 52.98 -23.39 -483.48
3 0.44 0.72 0.60 0.43 0.76 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.40
5 0.72 7.81 0.66 0.76 7.81 0.43 0.43 1.00 0.44
points
7 0.38 0.72 0.83 0.38 0.76 -2.55 0.34 0.43 0.41
—
91 —
Table 3.18 Dynamic Responses and Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frame D, (AOA=90º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
(lb, lb-ft) 7 33.56 19.63 136.90 33.56 18.21 184.04 33.60 23.41 164.94
Dynamic response under gust 3 112.03 -27.35 18.25 115.97 -49.75 309.8 116.55 112.03 -27.35
loading envelop based on first 5 27.35 -26.52 -627.55 49.75 -26.52 -336.01 61.08 27.35 -26.52
3 0.50 0.72 15.60 0.48 0.37 0.72 0.48 0.38 0.50
5 0.72 0.71 0.49 0.37 0.71 0.52 0.38 0.82 0.52
points
7 0.37 0.72 0.82 0.37 0.37 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.41
Table 3.19 Dynamic Responses of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B C D, (AOA=0º)
points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
Dynamic response of Frame A under 3 205.688 -119.355 827.937 213.679 -113.850 756.798 203.399 -126.948 740.827
fluctuating pressure on frame based 5 119.355 -23.475 -508.363 113.850 -23.475 -579.502 126.948 -25.680 -562.436
on mean pressure sign (lb, lb-ft) 7 201.952 119.355 729.886 201.952 113.850 658.747 204.157 126.948 708.803
Dynamic response of Frame B under 3 188.339 -158.259 817.886 199.914 -154.158 765.528 187.844 -165.741 774.455
Dynamic response of Frame C under 3 124.287 -107.186 493.034 133.112 -105.724 474.705 125.163 -112.899 498.203
Dynamic response of Frame D under 3 33.601 -27.548 130.499 35.851 -27.930 135.619 33.767 -30.088 141.164
—
92 —
Table 3.20 Dynamic Responses of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B C D, (AOA=90º)
points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
Dynamic response of Frame A under 3 136.49 -26.39 153.14 142.00 -45.73 404.72 138.48 -56.97 450.14
Dynamic response of Frame B under 3 170.62 -28.34 590.34 161.70 -33.70 659.87 159.73 -58.65 530.41
Dynamic response of Frame C under 3 197.61 -26.73 863.09 188.57 -27.94 878.58 180.61 -56.22 661.99
—
Dynamic response of Frame D under 3 103.87 -26.07 52.51 107.24 -44.82 296.50 107.25 -54.90 361.40
93 —
Table 3.21 Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B C D, (AOA=0º)
points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
Dynamic Response Factors of Frame A 3 0.570 0.686 1.217 0.554 0.416 0.646 0.575 0.449 0.530
under fluctuating pressure on frame 5 0.686 1.469 1.363 0.416 1.469 0.620 0.449 1.146 0.610
based on mean pressure sign (lb, lb-ft) 7 0.579 0.686 0.844 0.579 0.416 0.652 0.593 0.449 0.518
Dynamic Response Factors of Frame B 3 0.621 0.735 1.775 0.608 0.555 0.969 0.630 0.555 0.671
Dynamic Response Factors of Frame C 3 0.415 0.668 1.925 0.386 0.327 0.811 0.394 0.307 0.403
under fluctuating pressure on frame 5 0.668 1.490 -1.545 0.327 1.490 0.441 0.307 1.004 0.434
—
Dynamic Response Factors of Frame D 3 0.657 0.713 1.798 0.637 0.510 0.967 0.659 0.536 0.730
94 —
Table 3.22 Dynamic Response Factors of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B C D, (AOA=90º)
points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
Dynamic Response Factors of Frame 3 0.54 0.72 2.10 0.51 0.43 0.63 0.51 0.43 0.49
A under fluctuating pressure on frame 5 0.72 1.00 0.58 0.43 1.00 0.56 0.43 0.99 0.55
B under fluctuating pressure on frame 5 0.92 1.37 0.68 0.63 1.37 0.55 0.45 0.92 0.56
based on mean pressure sign (lb, lb-ft) 7 0.45 0.92 0.96 0.45 0.63 -1.05 0.44 0.45 0.47
C under fluctuating pressure on frame 5 0.76 2.43 0.57 0.62 2.43 0.44 0.40 0.95 0.45
based on mean pressure sign (lb, lb-ft) 7 0.37 0.76 0.86 0.37 0.62 -1.28 0.34 0.40 0.39
—
95 —
D under fluctuating pressure on frame 5 0.75 0.87 0.56 0.41 0.87 0.57 0.43 0.99 0.57
Table 3.23 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame A (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 18.27 0.06 0.00 18.27 9.96 0.00 18.28 12.38 101.20
3 18.27 -27.51 653.23 18.27 -17.60 157.85 18.28 -15.18 138.08
Mean response
5 27.51 -0.08 433.92 17.60 -0.08 -61.47 15.18 -0.07 -81.63
(KN, KN-m)
7 18.30 27.51 654.82 18.30 17.60 159.42 18.28 15.18 138.87
9 18.30 0.00 0.00 18.30 -9.91 0.00 18.28 -12.33 100.43
1 57.70 -51.41 0.00 57.70 46.30 0.00 47.92 51.94 618.14
Actual Absolute
3 57.70 -76.28 3051.68 57.70 -38.67 853.04 47.92 -32.73 440.79
Maximum Total
5 76.28 -27.98 2292.78 38.67 -27.99 -238.40 32.73 -11.09 -252.63
response
7 57.39 76.29 2165.05 57.39 38.67 881.23 50.97 32.73 437.56
—
(KN, KN-m)
9 57.39 0.00 0.00 57.39 -46.33 0.00 50.97 -52.05 661.16
96 —
1 3.16 -915.85 NaN 3.16 4.65 NaN 2.62 4.19 6.11

Gust Factor 3 3.16 2.77 4.67 3.16 2.20 5.40 2.62 2.16 3.19
with larger 5 2.77 331.10 5.28 2.20 333.65 3.88 2.16 162.05 3.09
absolute value 7 3.14 2.77 3.31 3.14 2.20 5.53 2.79 2.16 3.15
9 3.14 NaN NaN 3.14 4.68 NaN 2.79 4.22 6.58
Table 3.24 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame B (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 8.21 0.15 0.00 8.21 6.36 0.00 8.29 8.05 72.73
3 8.21 -16.52 392.33 8.21 -10.31 81.78 8.29 -8.62 69.77
Mean response
5 16.52 -0.10 290.73 10.31 -0.10 -19.84 8.62 -0.02 -33.96
(KN, KN-m)
7 8.53 16.52 398.73 8.53 10.31 88.15 8.45 8.62 71.91
9 8.53 0.00 0.00 8.53 -6.21 0.00 8.45 -7.91 68.49
1 42.20 -57.68 0.00 42.20 36.84 0.00 28.91 40.80 597.55
Actual Absolute
3 42.20 -61.57 2867.91 42.20 -29.95 815.59 28.91 -25.39 326.38
Maximum Total
5 61.58 -30.88 2094.09 29.95 -30.88 -134.97 25.39 -11.56 -144.06
response
7 40.93 61.58 1627.14 40.93 29.95 808.83 28.01 25.39 335.49
—
(KN, KN-m)
9 40.93 0.00 0.00 40.93 -41.68 0.00 28.01 -45.61 631.58
97 —
1 5.14 -387.17 NaN 5.14 5.79 NaN 3.49 5.07 8.22

Gust Factor 3 5.14 3.73 7.31 5.14 2.90 9.97 3.49 2.95 4.68
with larger 5 3.73 295.62 7.20 2.90 296.77 6.80 2.95 601.28 4.24
absolute value 7 4.80 3.73 4.08 4.80 2.90 9.18 3.32 2.95 4.67
9 4.80 NaN NaN 4.80 6.71 NaN 3.32 5.77 9.22
Table 3.25 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame C (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 4.45 0.08 0.00 4.45 4.33 0.00 4.48 5.48 48.36
3 4.45 -10.56 260.40 4.45 -6.31 47.91 4.48 -5.17 39.14
Mean response
5 10.56 -0.02 206.75 6.31 -0.02 -5.75 5.17 0.01 -15.27
(KN, KN-m)
7 4.50 10.56 262.57 4.50 6.31 50.06 4.47 5.17 39.78
9 4.50 0.00 0.00 4.50 -4.25 0.00 4.47 -5.39 46.84
Actual 1 29.75 48.88 0.00 29.75 37.01 0.00 14.85 40.67 599.56
Absolute 3 29.75 -54.08 2419.78 29.75 -21.18 689.11 14.85 -17.38 252.97
Maximum 5 54.08 -26.23 1834.22 21.18 -26.23 -66.37 17.38 -8.24 -70.11
Total response 7 31.36 54.08 1463.31 31.36 21.18 743.70 15.37 17.38 268.18
—
(KN, KN-m) 9 31.36 0.00 0.00 31.36 -36.16 0.00 15.37 -40.16 550.10
98 —
1 6.69 590.36 NaN 6.69 8.54 NaN 3.32 7.43 12.40

Gust Factor 3 6.69 5.12 9.29 6.69 3.36 14.38 3.32 3.36 6.46
with larger 5 5.12 1551.35 8.87 3.36 1577.13 11.54 3.36 -601.23 4.59
absolute value 7 6.96 5.12 5.57 6.96 3.36 14.86 3.44 3.36 6.74
9 6.96 NaN NaN 6.96 8.51 NaN 3.44 7.45 -6.69
Table 3.26 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame A (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 23.31 -18.10 0.00 23.31 -9.29 0.00 16.42 -9.83 -194.48
3 23.31 -9.96 740.59 23.31 -1.16 300.31 16.42 -1.69 132.45
Mean response
5 9.96 8.46 366.82 1.16 8.46 -73.47 1.69 1.57 -69.03
(KN, KN-m)
7 -1.91 9.96 246.72 -1.91 1.16 -193.59 4.98 1.69 -16.86
9 -1.91 0.00 0.00 -1.91 -8.81 0.00 4.98 -8.27 150.12
1 68.17 -67.46 0.00 68.18 -42.78 0.00 48.55 -46.59 -781.91
Actual Absolute
3 68.17 -28.63 2291.07 68.18 11.17 961.66 48.55 -9.12 379.46
Maximum Total
5 28.63 34.92 1195.37 -11.17 34.92 -289.54 9.12 10.01 -260.17
response
7 -25.37 28.63 695.07 -25.37 -11.17 -865.33 24.72 9.12 -223.04
—
(KN, KN-m)
9 -25.37 0.00 0.00 -25.37 -26.63 0.00 24.72 -24.34 517.47
99 —
1 2.93 3.73 NaN 2.93 4.60 NaN 2.96 4.74 4.02

Gust Factor 3 2.93 2.87 3.09 2.93 -9.67 3.20 2.96 5.40 2.87
with larger 5 2.87 4.13 3.26 -9.67 4.13 3.94 5.40 6.36 3.77
absolute value 7 13.26 2.87 2.82 13.25 -9.67 4.47 4.97 -4.60 13.23
9 13.26 NaN NaN 13.25 3.02 NaN 4.97 2.94 3.45
Table 3.27 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame B (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 27.27 -26.60 0.00 27.27 -15.81 0.00 17.68 -16.97 -288.29
3 27.27 -9.83 921.21 27.27 0.96 381.68 17.68 -0.20 151.42
Mean response
5 9.83 11.67 454.66 -0.96 11.67 -84.89 0.20 2.08 -75.22
(KN, KN-m)
7 -5.99 9.83 243.07 -5.99 -0.96 -296.49 3.61 0.20 -46.89
9 -5.99 0.00 0.00 -5.99 -10.79 0.00 3.61 -9.63 191.58
1 69.37 -79.15 0.00 69.38 -52.65 0.00 43.19 -57.35 -900.36
Actual Absolute
3 69.37 -24.78 2470.60 69.38 13.16 1040.07 43.19 8.61 383.83
Maximum Total
5 24.78 36.53 1296.18 -13.16 36.53 -245.00 -8.61 9.67 -208.42
response
7 -30.54 24.78 628.22 -30.54 -13.15 -977.74 15.03 -8.61 -244.76
—
(KN, KN-m)
9 -30.54 0.00 0.00 -30.54 -29.03 0.00 15.03 -25.45 550.55
100 —
1 2.54 2.98 NaN 2.54 3.33 NaN 2.44 3.38 3.12

Gust Factor 3 2.54 2.52 2.68 2.54 -7.25 2.72 2.44 -43.44 2.53
with larger 5 2.52 3.13 2.85 13.67 3.33 2.89 -43.44 4.66 2.77
absolute value 7 5.10 2.52 2.58 5.10 13.67 3.30 4.16 -43.43 5.22
9 5.10 NaN NaN 5.10 2.69 NaN 4.16 2.64 2.87
Table 3.28 Mean, Maximum Responses and Corresponding Gust Response Factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame C (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 27.43 -27.50 0.00 27.43 -16.77 0.00 17.64 -18.08 -299.06
3 27.43 -9.48 922.84 27.43 1.25 386.61 17.64 -0.06 152.83
Mean response
5 9.48 11.84 445.87 -1.25 11.84 -90.38 0.06 2.06 -79.50
(KN, KN-m)
7 -5.89 9.48 234.48 -5.89 -1.25 -301.79 3.89 0.06 -46.25
9 -5.89 0.00 0.00 -5.89 -10.73 0.00 3.89 -9.42 190.27
1 70.16 -77.11 0.00 70.16 -50.48 0.00 44.53 -55.24 -877.18
Actual Absolute
3 70.16 -26.10 2429.13 70.16 13.21 1038.75 44.53 8.73 391.50
Maximum Total
5 26.10 34.86 1199.57 -13.21 34.86 -268.85 -8.73 9.04 -229.60
response
7 -29.44 26.10 694.19 -29.44 -13.21 -940.57 14.57 -8.73 -235.06
—
(KN, KN-m)
9 -29.44 0.00 0.00 -29.44 -27.81 0.00 14.57 -24.68 523.05
101 —
1 2.56 2.80 NaN 2.56 3.01 NaN 2.52 3.06 2.93

Gust Factor with 3 2.56 2.75 2.63 2.56 10.59 2.69 2.52 -152.67 2.56
larger absolute 5 2.75 2.94 2.69 10.59 2.94 2.97 -152.61 4.39 2.89
value 7 5.00 2.75 2.96 5.00 10.59 3.12 3.74 -152.52 5.08
9 5.00 NaN NaN 5.00 -5.07 NaN 3.74 2.62 2.75
Table 3.29 Dynamic Responses and background factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame A (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 39.43 -51.46 0.00 39.43 36.34 0.00 29.63 39.56 516.94
Actual Absolute
3 39.43 -48.77 2398.45 39.43 -21.07 695.19 29.63 -17.55 302.71
Maximum Dynamic
5 48.77 -27.90 1858.86 21.07 -27.90 -176.93 17.55 -11.02 -170.99
response
7 39.09 48.77 1510.22 39.09 21.07 721.81 32.69 17.55 298.69
(KN, KN-m)
9 39.09 0.00 0.00 39.09 -36.43 0.00 32.69 -39.72 560.73
Dynamic response 1 43.55 0.28 0.00 43.55 38.73 0.00 44.29 47.73 393.91
under gust loading 3 43.55 -85.86 2303.06 43.55 -47.41 380.68 44.29 -38.41 324.27
envelop based on first 5 85.86 -1.26 1828.55 47.41 -1.26 -93.90 38.41 -0.51 -168.95
POD mode 7 48.52 85.86 2383.99 48.52 47.41 461.48 47.78 38.41 367.78
—
(KN, KN-m) 9 48.52 0.00 0.00 48.52 -38.45 0.00 47.78 -47.46 356.62
102 —
1 0.91 -185.00 NaN 0.91 0.94 NaN 0.67 0.83 1.31

3 0.91 0.57 1.04 0.91 0.44 1.83 0.67 0.46 0.93
Background factor 5 0.57 22.09 1.02 0.44 22.13 1.88 0.46 21.39 1.01
7 0.81 0.57 0.63 0.81 0.44 1.56 0.68 0.46 0.81
9 0.81 NaN NaN 0.81 0.95 NaN 0.68 0.84 1.57
Table 3.30 Dynamic Responses and background factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame B(AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 33.99 -57.83 0.00 33.99 30.48 0.00 20.62 32.74 524.82
Actual Absolute
3 33.99 -45.05 2475.58 33.99 -19.64 733.81 20.62 -16.77 326.38
Maximum Dynamic
5 45.05 -30.77 1803.36 19.64 -30.77 123.98 16.77 -11.54 -144.06
response
7 32.40 45.06 1228.41 32.40 19.64 720.68 19.56 16.77 335.49
(KN, KN-m)
9 32.40 0.00 0.00 32.40 -35.47 0.00 19.56 -37.70 631.58
Dynamic response 1 29.38 -7.39 0.00 29.38 19.43 0.00 27.36 25.33 194.99
envelop based on first 5 63.20 2.46 1296.58 36.38 2.46 -44.39 30.48 0.43 -93.52
POD mode 7 24.45 63.20 1552.72 24.44 36.38 211.70 26.47 30.48 213.21
—
(KN, KN-m) 9 24.45 0.00 0.00 24.44 -26.82 0.00 26.47 -32.72 296.27
103 —
1 1.16 7.83 NaN 1.16 1.57 NaN 0.75 1.29 2.69

3 1.16 0.71 1.47 1.16 0.54 2.17 0.75 0.55 1.07
Background factor 5 0.71 -12.53 1.39 0.54 -12.52 -2.79 0.55 -26.70 1.18
7 1.33 0.71 0.79 1.33 0.54 3.40 0.74 0.55 1.24
9 1.33 NaN NaN 1.33 1.32 NaN 0.74 1.15 1.90
Table 3.31 Dynamic Responses and background factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Across Frame C(AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 25.30 48.80 0.00 25.30 32.68 0.00 10.38 35.20 551.20
Actual Absolute
3 25.30 -43.51 2159.39 25.30 -14.86 641.20 10.38 -12.21 213.82
Maximum Dynamic
5 43.52 -26.21 1627.47 14.86 -26.21 66.17 12.21 -8.25 -54.84
response
7 26.86 43.52 1200.74 26.86 14.86 693.64 10.90 12.21 228.40
(KN, KN-m)
9 26.86 0.00 0.00 26.86 -31.91 0.00 10.90 -34.77 503.26
Dynamic response 1 16.66 -0.39 0.00 16.66 23.75 0.00 17.04 30.36 284.72
envelop based on first 5 59.69 -0.46 1235.64 35.55 -0.45 28.33 28.94 -0.08 -26.73
POD mode 7 17.39 59.70 1453.70 17.39 35.55 246.35 17.01 28.94 181.86
—
(KN, KN-m) 9 17.39 0.00 0.00 17.39 -24.15 0.00 17.01 -30.75 265.86
104 —
1 1.52 -124.47 NaN 1.52 1.38 NaN 0.61 1.16 1.94

3 1.52 0.73 1.53 1.52 0.42 3.08 0.61 0.42 1.31
7 1.54 0.73 0.83 1.54 0.42 2.82 0.64 0.42 1.26
9 1.54 NaN NaN 1.54 1.32 NaN 0.64 1.13 1.89
Table 3.32 Dynamic Responses and background factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame A (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 44.87 -49.36 0.00 44.87 -33.49 0.00 32.14 -36.77 -587.43
Actual Absolute
3 44.87 -18.67 1550.48 44.87 12.33 661.35 32.14 9.46 247.01
Maximum Dynamic
5 18.67 26.45 828.54 -12.33 26.45 -216.07 -9.46 8.43 -191.13
response
7 -23.46 18.67 448.35 -23.46 -12.33 -671.73 19.74 -9.46 -206.19
(KN, KN-m)
9 -23.46 0.00 0.00 -23.46 -17.82 0.00 19.74 -16.06 367.35
Dynamic response 1 83.42 -83.26 0.00 83.42 -51.18 0.00 52.60 -55.42 -947.43
under gust loading 3 83.42 -26.74 2829.73 83.42 5.34 1225.62 52.60 1.10 490.33
envelop based on first 5 26.75 41.05 1306.15 -5.34 41.05 -298.02 -1.10 10.23 -262.67
POD mode 7 -12.04 26.75 656.58 -12.04 -5.34 -947.64 18.79 -1.10 -141.64
—
(KN, KN-m) 9 -12.04 0.00 0.00 -12.04 -32.08 0.00 18.79 -27.84 593.89
105 —
1 0.54 0.59 NaN 0.54 0.65 NaN 0.61 0.66 0.62

3 0.54 0.70 0.55 0.54 2.31 0.54 0.61 8.63 0.50
7 1.95 0.70 0.68 1.95 2.31 0.71 1.05 8.64 1.46
9 1.95 NaN NaN 1.95 0.56 NaN 1.05 0.58 0.62
Table 3.33 Dynamic Responses and background factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame B (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 42.10 -52.55 0.00 42.10 -36.85 0.00 25.51 -40.38 -612.07
Actual Absolute
3 42.10 -14.95 1549.39 42.10 12.19 658.39 25.51 8.81 232.41
Maximum Dynamic
5 14.95 24.85 841.52 -12.19 24.85 -160.12 -8.81 7.59 -133.21
response
7 -24.55 14.95 385.15 -24.55 -12.19 -681.25 11.42 -8.81 -197.87
(KN, KN-m)
9 -24.55 0.00 0.00 -24.55 -18.24 0.00 11.42 -15.82 358.97
POD mode 7 -14.31 20.28 513.81 -14.32 -7.04 -851.97 12.57 -2.92 -145.44
—
(KN, KN-m) 9 -14.31 0.00 0.00 -14.32 -27.32 0.00 12.57 -23.20 500.96
106 —
1 0.60 0.70 NaN 0.60 0.78 NaN 0.59 0.78 0.73

3 0.60 0.74 0.64 0.60 1.73 0.63 0.59 3.01 0.57
7 1.72 0.74 0.75 1.72 1.73 0.80 0.91 3.01 1.36
9 1.72 NaN NaN 1.72 0.67 NaN 0.91 0.68 0.72
Table 3.34 Dynamic Responses and background factors of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 of Critical Section 1,3,5,7,9 on Along Frame C (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 42.73 -49.61 0.00 42.73 -33.71 0.00 26.89 -37.16 -578.12
Actual Absolute
3 42.73 -16.63 1506.29 42.73 11.97 652.15 26.89 8.78 238.67
Maximum Dynamic
5 16.63 23.01 753.70 -11.97 23.01 -178.47 -8.78 6.98 -150.10
response
7 -23.55 16.63 459.71 -23.55 -11.97 -638.78 10.68 -8.78 -188.80
(KN, KN-m)
9 -23.55 0.00 0.00 -23.55 -17.09 0.00 10.68 -15.26 332.79
POD mode 7 -12.55 20.41 537.59 -12.55 -6.57 -811.67 13.42 -2.59 -129.39
—
(KN, KN-m) 9 -12.55 0.00 0.00 -12.55 -26.99 0.00 13.42 -23.01 483.28
107 —
1 0.61 0.68 NaN 0.61 0.74 NaN 0.61 0.75 0.71

3 0.61 0.81 0.64 0.61 1.82 0.64 0.61 3.39 0.60
7 1.88 0.81 0.86 1.88 1.82 0.79 0.80 3.39 1.46
9 1.88 NaN NaN 1.88 0.63 NaN 0.80 0.66 0.69
Table 3.35 Maximum Responses of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B C D under four gust loading envelopes, (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 238.05 -119.35 1800.12 234.89 -74.33 1214.61 210.90 -98.31 839.56
Frame
5 119.35 -60.54 -2041.71 74.33 -60.54 -610.50 98.31 -34.50 -577.84
A
7 239.01 119.35 729.86 239.01 74.33 1184.31 212.97 98.31 825.70
3 246.54 -158.25 2565.64 240.19 -83.83 1598.14 202.90 -110.57 978.96
Frame
5 158.25 -87.05 -2676.97 83.83 -87.05 -667.97 110.57 -43.56 -632.85
B
7 246.72 158.25 797.10 246.72 83.83 1592.49 203.23 110.57 974.16
3 164.45 -107.18 1699.20 160.51 -59.07 1050.30 135.73 -75.98 642.28
Frame
5 107.18 -57.38 -1737.32 59.07 -57.38 -427.94 75.98 -27.89 -405.59
C
7 164.69 107.18 533.26 164.69 59.07 1067.94 135.19 75.98 647.00
—
3 43.50 -27.55 427.65 42.72 -16.24 277.09 36.31 -20.81 175.66

Frame
108 —
5 27.55 -15.12 -455.95 16.24 -15.12 -121.08 20.81 -7.79 -114.80

D
7 46.17 27.55 136.84 46.17 16.24 280.62 38.85 20.81 176.53
Table 3.36 Maximum Responses of Critical Section 3, 5, 7 on Frames A B C D under four gust loading envelopes, (AOA=90º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 126.14 -80.01 1304.60 122.87 -43.47 829.52 103.78 -57.61 512.90
Frame
5 80.01 -46.03 -1468.39 43.47 -46.03 -369.95 57.61 -24.82 -348.44
A
7 130.59 80.01 417.89 130.59 43.47 800.03 109.38 57.61 503.07
3 -145.02 90.73 -1649.23 -138.72 38.68 -972.42 -115.68 55.64 -555.05
Frame
5 -90.73 59.53 1622.26 -38.68 59.53 364.85 -55.64 31.15 343.16
B
7 -134.76 -90.73 -480.04 -134.76 -38.68 -950.63 -106.39 -55.64 -546.24
3 -128.39 98.24 -1733.62 -121.86 37.05 -938.09 -98.53 50.03 -507.42
Frame
5 -98.24 -55.13 -1785.97 -37.05 -55.13 342.37 -50.03 26.86 321.75
C
7 120.02 -98.24 -549.03 120.02 -37.05 913.78 -90.81 -50.03 481.79
—
3 80.69 -48.05 -869.83 77.48 -24.07 545.46 65.19 -34.01 326.26

Frame
109 —
5 48.05 30.20 -1005.48 24.07 30.20 -221.42 34.01 14.78 -207.32

D
7 87.20 48.05 246.84 87.20 24.07 559.13 71.24 34.01 333.50
Table 3.37 Background factor based on four gust loading envelopes, (AOA=0º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 0.49 0.69 0.56 0.50 0.64 0.40 0.55 0.58 0.47
Frame
5 0.69 0.57 0.34 0.64 0.57 0.59 0.58 0.85 0.59
A
7 0.49 0.69 0.84 0.49 0.64 0.36 0.57 0.58 0.44
3 0.47 0.73 0.57 0.51 1.02 0.46 0.58 0.83 0.53
Frame
5 0.73 0.66 0.45 1.02 0.66 0.70 0.83 0.95 0.71
B
7 0.50 0.73 0.84 0.50 1.02 0.46 0.60 0.83 0.54
3 0.31 0.67 0.56 0.32 0.58 0.37 0.36 0.46 0.31
Frame
5 0.67 0.49 -0.34 0.58 0.49 0.41 0.46 0.64 0.42
C
7 0.31 0.67 0.77 0.31 0.58 0.35 0.36 0.46 0.31
—
3 0.51 0.71 0.55 0.53 0.88 0.47 0.61 0.78 0.59

Frame
110 —
5 0.71 0.64 0.41 0.88 0.64 0.76 0.78 0.90 0.77

D
7 0.52 0.71 0.84 0.52 0.88 0.47 0.63 0.78 0.58
Table 3.38 Background factor based on four gust loading envelopes, (AOA=90º)

points
N Q M N Q M N Q M
3 0.58 0.24 0.25 0.59 0.46 0.31 0.69 0.43 0.43
Frame
5 0.24 0.46 0.24 0.46 0.46 0.52 0.43 0.76 0.52
A
7 0.29 0.24 0.33 0.29 0.46 0.28 0.35 0.43 0.37
3 -0.62 -0.29 -0.38 -0.61 -0.55 -0.43 -0.72 -0.47 -0.52
Frame
5 -0.29 -0.38 -0.22 -0.55 -0.38 -0.67 -0.47 -0.80 -0.67
B
7 -0.27 -0.29 -0.32 -0.27 -0.55 0.25 -0.38 -0.47 -0.36
3 -0.72 -0.21 -0.36 -0.71 -0.47 -0.46 -0.84 -0.45 -0.56
Frame
5 -0.21 0.32 0.17 -0.47 0.32 -0.66 -0.45 -0.86 -0.66
C
7 0.27 -0.21 -0.22 0.27 -0.47 -0.22 -0.40 -0.45 0.36
—
3 0.70 0.41 -0.33 0.71 0.76 0.41 0.85 0.69 0.61

Frame
111 —
5 0.41 -0.63 0.31 0.76 -0.63 0.79 0.69 -1.21 0.80

D
7 0.38 0.41 0.55 0.38 0.76 0.33 0.47 0.69 0.49
Wall 3
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
2 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
X
3 2 1
28 29 30 70 69 68 67 66 90 89 88 87
Frame D
6 5 4
25 26 27 65 64 63 62 61 86 85 84 83
9 8 7
22 23 24 60 59 58 57 56 82 81 80 79
12 11 10
19 20 21 55 54 53 52 51 78 77 76 75
Wall 2 16 17 18 50 49 48 47 46 74 73 72 71
15 14 13
Wall 4
Frame C
14
Y 45 44 43 42 41 20 19 18 17 17
13 15 18 16
40 39 38 37 36 16 15 14 13
10 11 12 21 20 19
7 8 9 35 34 33 32 31 12 11 10 9 24 23 22 Frame B
6 30 29 28 27 26 8 7 6 5 27
4 5 26 25
1 2 3 25 24 23 22 21 4 3 2 1 30 29 28 Frame A
27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3
26 23 20 17 14 11 8 5 2
Wall 1
25 22 19 16 13 10 7 4 1
wind
angle of attack
Figure 3.1 Frame System for WERFL Building
4 5 6
3 7
2 8
1 9
Figure 3.2 Critical Sections for Frames
— 112 —
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
K K 1cm
243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 2cm
J J
233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 2cm
I I
223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232
2cm
H H
213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222
2cm
G G
203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212
2cm
0° F 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 F
2cm
E 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 E
2cm
D D
173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182
2cm
C C
163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172
2cm
B B
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 1cm
K J I H G F E D C B B C D E F G H I J K
15 152 147 142 137 132 127 122 117 110 105 26
1cm
50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 253 258 263 268 273 278 283 288 293 298 2cm
14 151 146 141 136 131 126 121 116 109 104 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 254 259 264 269 274 279 284 289 294 299
27
2cm
13 150 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 108 103 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300
28
2cm
12 149 144 139 134 129 124 119 114 107 102 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 256 261 266 271 276 281 286 291 296 301
29
2cm
11 148 143 138 133 128 123 118 113 106 101 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 257 262 267 272 277 282 287 292 297 302
30
2cm
5 475 470 465 460 455 450 445 440 435 430 484 489 494 499 504 375 374 373 372 371 476 306 311 316 321 326 331 336 341 346
6
2cm
4 474 469 464 459 454 449 444 439 434 429 483 488 493 498 503 370 369 368 367 366 477 307 312 317 322 327 332 337 342 347
7
2cm
3 473 468 463 458 453 448 443 438 433 428 482 487 492 497 502 365 364 363 362 361 478 308 313 318 323 328 333 338 343 348
8
2cm
2 472 467 462 457 452 447 442 437 432 427 481 486 491 496 501 360 359 358 357 356 479 309 314 319 324 329 334 339 344 349
9
2cm
1 10
471 466 461 456 451 446 441 436 431 426 480 485 490 495 500 355 354 353 352 351 305 310 315 320 325 330 335 340 345 350 1cm
K J I H G F E D C B B C D E F G H I J K
1cm
B 55 54 53 52 51 380 379 378 377 376 B 2cm
C 60 59 58 57 56 385 384 383 382 381 C 2cm
D 65 64 63 62 61 390 389 388 387 386 D
2cm
E 70 69 68 67 66 395 394 393 392 391 E
2cm
F 75 74 73 72 71 400 399 398 397 396 F
2cm
G 80 79 78 77 76 405 404 403 402 401 G
2cm
H 85 84 83 82 81 410 409 408 407 406 H
2cm
I 90 89 88 87 86 415 414 413 412 411 I
2cm
J 95 94 93 92 91 420 419 418 417 416 J
2cm
K 100 99 98 97 96 425 424 423 422 421 K 1cm
30 29 28 27 26 15 14 13 12 11
1cm 2cm 2cm 2cm 2cm 1cm

2cm 2cm 2cm 2cm 2cm
Cubic model (20cm×20cm×20cm)

Figure 3.3 Pressure Tap Arrangement
— 113 —
w
i
n
d
W
a
l
l
O
n
e
W
a
l
l
F
o
u
r
W
a
l
l
T
w
o
A
c
r
o
s
s
F
r
a
m
e
A
A
c
r
o
s
s
F
r
a
m
e
B
A
c
r
o
s
s
F
r
a
m
e
C
A
W
a
l
l
T
h
r
e
e
B C
e e e
m m m
a
r a
r a
r
F F F
g g g
n n n
o
l o
l o
l
A A A
Figure 3.4 Frame Arrangement of Wind Tunnel Model
1
2 3
WIND 4
2E 3E
4E
1E
5 2a, with
Reference a=3ft
Corner Direction of MWFRS
AOA=90º
Figure 3.5 Pressure distribution base on ASCE figure 6-10
— 114 —
-5.832lb/f -2.889lb/f
-2.344lb/f
WIND
3.326lb/f
Frame A
Figure 3.6(a) pressure distribution on Frame A based on ASCE figure 6-10

-6.881lb/f -3.690lb/f
-2.895lb/f
WIND
3.992lb/f
Frame B
Figure 3.6(b) pressure distribution on Frame B based on ASCE figure 6-10

-6.881lb/f -3.690lb/f
-2.895lb/f
WIND
3.992lb/f
Frame C
Figure 3.6(c) pressure distribution on Frame C based on ASCE figure 6-10

-3.761lb/f -2.017lb/f
-1.582lb/f
WIND
2.182lb/f
Frame D
Figure 3.6(d) pressure distribution on Frame D based on ASCE figure 6-10
— 115 —
Figure 3.7 Gust Loading Envelope Distribution Based on first POD mode on Frame A at AOA=0º
Figure 3.8 Gust Loading Envelope Distribution Based on first POD mode on Frame B at AOA=0º
Figure 3.9 Gust Loading Envelope Distribution Based on first POD mode on Frame C at AOA=0º
— 116 —
Figure 3.10 Gust Loading Envelope Distribution Based on first POD mode on Frame D at AOA=0
º
Figure 3.11 Gust Loading Envelope Distribution Based on first POD mode on Frame A at AOA=90
º
Figure 3.12 Gust Loading Envelope Distribution Based on first POD mode on Frame B at
AOA=90º
— 117 —
Figure 3.13 Gust Loading Envelope Distribution Based on first POD mode on Frame C at
AOA=90º
Figure 3.14 Gust Loading Envelope Distribution Based on first POD mode on Frame D at
AOA=90º
Figure 3.15 Gust Loading Envelope 1 Distribution on Frame A at AOA=0º
— 118 —
— 119 —
Figure 3.19 Gust Loading Envelope 1 Distribution on Frame B at AOA=0º
— 120 —
Figure 3.23 Gust Loading Envelope 1 Distribution on Frame C at AOA=0º
— 121 —
Figure 3.27 Gust Loading Envelope 1 Distribution on Frame D at AOA=0º
— 122 —
— 123 —
— 124 —
— 125 —
— 126 —
— 127 —
— 128 —
— 129 —
CHAPTER IV
EQUIVALENT STATIC WIND LOAD
4.1 Introduction
Wind load has long been the investigation topic for wind engineers. The complication
of geometry of structures and field category makes the wind induced responses on
structures hard to estimate. And for simplicity, in current design practice,
spatiotemporally varying wind loads on buildings are usually modeled as equivalent
static wind loads. This loading description can be used for estimating response under
the combined action of wind and other loads.
Equivalent static wind load (ESWL) has been investigated by several scholars. The
traditional gust response factor (GRF) method has been proposed by Davenport
(Davenport, 1967) and is widely used in most current building design codes and
standards which results in a pressure distribution similar to mean pressure distribution.
The GRF method has been improved (Piccardo, 2000; Zhou, 2001; Kareem, 2003).
The GRF is simple to use but from chapter III, it can be seen that GRF’s vary in a
large range for different responses of a structure and for structures with similar
geometric profile and similar associated wind load characteristics but different
structure systems, the GRF’s may be quite different. Similar to GRF method, a
dynamic response factor (DRF) (Holmes, 2002a) method is proposed. However the
DRF’s may have the same kind of problem as GRF’s and will vary in a large range for
different structure responses. In Repetto and Solari (Repetto, 2004), an identical
ESWL distribution for all response components was suggested by utilizing a
polynomial expansion determined on the premise that the ESWL results in accurate
estimates of a limited number of pre-selected peak responses. ESWL associated with a
certain response is also investigated by dividing into background (BESWL) and
resonant components (RESWL) which makes description of wind loading physically
more meaningful. For low-rise building with relatively large rigidity, resonant
response can be neglected and corresponding resonant equivalent static wind load
(RESWL) is not necessary to be considered. And background equivalent static wind
load (BESWL) is the main focus of wind loading on low-rise building. BESWL
depends on the external wind load characteristics.
Kasperski proposed a load-response correlation (LRC) approach for determining
— 130 —
BESWL that results in different spatial load distributions for different response
components (Kasperski, 1992). The LRC approach provides a most probable load
distribution for a desired peak response, which has been experimentally proved by
Tamura et al (Tamura, 2002).
Universal equivalent static wind load is once proposed by Katsumura and Tamura el
(Katsumura, 2005). The assumed universal equivalent static wind load is actually a
combination of POD modes of random fluctuating pressure field. The combination
coefficients are decided by least square method and the main idea of this method is
that the estimated universal ESWL will produce responses fitting the actual response
well.
In this chapter, several equivalent static wind loading (ESWL) methods are compared,
and the universal ESWL method is applied to WERFL building and another modified
universal ESWL method is also utilized for WERFL building.
4.2 LRC pressure distribution of WERFL building
For low-rise buildings with large rigidity, resonant responses can be disregarded.
Wind loading which should be considered for low-rise building is the background
wind loading. Background wind loading is the quasi-static loading produced by
fluctuations due to turbulence, but with frequencies too low to excite any resonant
response.
During a windstorm, because of the incomplete correlations of pressures at various

points on a structure, loadings varying both in space and time will be experienced. For
wind engineering design, it is necessary to identify the instantaneous loadings which
produce the critical load effects in a structure.
Kasperski and Niemann once proposed Load-Response Correlation method to obtain

expected instantaneous pressure distribution associated with the maximum or
minimum load effect. For maximum value r̂ of a load effect r , the corresponding
pressure distribution is:
( pi ) rˆ = pi + g B ρ r , pi σ pi (4.1)
where pi and σ pi are the mean and root-mean-square(r.m.s) pressures at point or
panel, i. ρ r , pi is the correlation coefficient between the fluctuating loading effect and
— 131 —
the fluctuating pressure at point i, and g B is the peak factor for background response.
In equation (4.1) the correlation coefficient ρ r , pi can be determined from the
correlation coefficients for the fluctuating pressures at all points on the tributary area,
and from the influence coefficients. It is given by the following equation.
ρ r , pi = ∑ [ pi (t ) p k (t )I k ] /(σ piσ r ) (4.2)

k
Where I k is the influence coefficient for a pressure applied at position k.
The standard deviation of the structural load effect, σ r , is given by
σ r2 = ∑∑ pi (t ) p k (t )I i I k (4.3)
i k
For the assumed frame system of WERFL building, LRC method is used to find
corresponding pressure distributions causing maximum axial force N, shear force Q
and bending moment M at nine critical sections along each frame for both AOA
around 0º and around 90º. Since Frame B and Frame C are usually the frames on
which large wind induced responses happen, the ESWL’s are focused on these two
frames.
Figure 4.1~Figure 4.4 show mean pressure distribution, ESWL pressure distribution
based on conditional sampling, ESWL pressure distribution based on LRC method,
ESWL pressure distribution based on gust loading envelop (GLE) for bending
moment M at critical section 3 on Frame B at AOA=0º with support condition fix-fix.
For clarity, it is necessary to explain the ESWL’s pressure distributions mentioned

above. ESWL pressure distribution based on conditional sampling is obtained by
averaging the pressure distributions causing a certain maximum response of all the
sampling runs. And the ESWL pressure distribution based on gust loading envelop
(GLE) is determined by multiplying the gust loading envelop (referring to the gust
loading envelop based on the first POD mode as defined in chapter III) by the
corresponding background factor for a certain response which has been calculated in
chapter III.
ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE for bending moment M at critical section 3
— 132 —
on Frame C at AOA=0º with support condition fix-fix.
ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE for bending moment M at critical section 3
on Frame B at AOA=90º with support condition fix-fix.
Figure 4.13~Figure 4.16 show mean pressure distribution, ESWL pressure

distribution based on conditional sampling, ESWL pressure distribution based on
LRC method, ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE for bending moment M at
critical section 3 on Frame C at AOA=90º with support condition fix-fix.
From these figures, it can be seen that when AOA around 0 º , the mean pressure
distribution and ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE are symmetrical for both
Frame B and Frame C.
For AOA around 0º, ESWL pressure distribution based on conditional sampling and
LRC method are similar to each other which proves that the ensemble averaged
extreme pressure distribution corresponding to a certain maximum response will
converge to ESWL pressure distribution based on LRC method.
For AOA around 90º, mean pressure distribution, ESWL pressure distribution based
on conditional sampling, ESWL pressure distribution based on LRC method and
ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE are similar to each other for both Frame B
and Frame C and it should be noted that in this case, the frames are parallel to the
wind direction.
4.3 Universal Equivalent Static Wind Load
Universal equivalent static wind load is once proposed by Katsumura and Tamura el
(Katsumura, 2005). The assumed universal equivalent static wind load is actually a
combination of POD modes of random fluctuating pressure field. The POD modes can
be determined once the covariance matrix of the fluctuating pressure field is formed.
The key of the method is to determine the combination coefficients of the POD modes.
The derivation of universal equivalent static wind load is simply described as follows.
In engineering practice, discrete structure model is usually used. For a static wind load
fi acting on structure at a point i, a load effect R induced by this load can be expressed
— 133 —
as:
Ri = f t * ri (4.4)
where ri is the influence function value of R at point i.
The actual maximum load effect R can be expressed in terms of equivalent static wind
load and influence function.
R= fei * ri (4.5)
where fei is the equivalent static wind load which will produce the same maximum
response as the actual wind loading.
If a group of load effects need to be taken into consideration in design, it is desirable

that a universal load distribution can reproduce all the maximum load effects. This
relationship can be expressed in a matrix form.
Since the equivalent static wind load is for a group of load responses, several
representative load distributions can first be obtained and then a combination of these
load distributions is determined to satisfy all the maximum load effects. The universal
ESWL is expressed as
Fe = c1 f1 + c 2 f 2 + " + c n f n = FC (4.6)
where Fe is the equivalent static wind load, F is the basic load distribution matrix, C
is the combination vector.
The eigen modes of norm 1 obtained from POD analysis of fluctuating pressure field
are employed as load distribution matrix F, each vector in matrix F is a basic load
distribution for combination. For this case, F is actually the eigen matrix Φ . The
reason of utilization of POD eigen modes is that eigen modes are physically
significant distributions which may indicate the ESWL effectively. The responses
caused by wind load combination of eigen modes can be expressed as:
R = IΦC = R0 C (4.7)
Where I is the influence function matrix, Φ is the eigen mode matrix, R0 is the
product of influence function matrix and eigen mode matrix; C = {c1 , c 2 , " c n } is the
'
combination factor vector or contribution factor vector.
— 134 —
If R0 is regular, and an inverse matrix exists, a unique solution is obtained. If the
number of unknown coefficients C is larger than that of the group of load effects
considered, several combinations of solution will be obtained. And if the number of
load effects considered is larger than that of the contribution coefficients, no precise
solution exists; this condition is the most frequently encountered case in practice,
since usually the load effects considered are much greater than the basic load
distributions. In this case, a least square approximation solution can be obtained for
contribution factor matrix C; to get the least square approximation solution, singular
value decomposition is applied to R0 , it is decomposed to the normalized orthogonal
matrix and singular values:
R0 ( M , N ) = U ( M , N ) S ( N , N )V T ( N , N ) (4.8)
where M is the number of subjective load effects, N is the number of combination

coefficients.
So the combination factors {C } can be derived as
{C} = VS −1U T {Rˆ } (4.9)
After the combination factors {C } are obtained, the universal ESWL can be decided
and it will reproduce approximately the subjective maximum load effects.
The universal ESWL method was once applied to a cantilevered large roof in
Katsumura’s paper (Katsumura, 2005). Two models with different connection joint
conditions are assumed for this roof model; Model I is pin-jointed, Model II is rigid-
jointed. There are totally 96 pressure taps uniformly distributed on the inside and
outside roof. The pressures at equivalent topside and underside points were measured
simultaneously in order to obtain the net pressure force. The spatial correlation matrix
of the fluctuating field is calculated by excluding the mean pressure. The eigen modes
determined by POD analysis with larger eigen values are utilized as the basic
combination load. The corresponding combination coefficients are determined for
maximum shear forces Q and maximum bending moments M in structural members
separately. For the pin-jointed model, the universal EWSL’s causing maximum shear
forces Q and maximum bending moment M in all the members are almost the same;
while for rigid-jointed model, these two universal ESWL’s are different, which
demonstrates that different ESWL’s need to be considered not only for different
— 135 —
structural types but also for different load effects.
Also a contribution factor is defined in his paper (Katsumura, 2005):
Ci
i-th mode contribution= (4.10)
∑C i
If the maximum shear forces and bending moments are considered simultaneously, for
model I, the contribution factor of the first eigen mode is about 37.7%, while for
model II, the first eigen mode contribution factor is 14.8%; for both models, the first
eigen mode is predominant. The cumulative contribution factor for model I in the
range from first mode to 15th mode is almost 80% while that for model II is only 53%.
It is clarified that in order to reproduce accurately the maximum load effects of all
members, the superposition of higher normalized modes is necessary. And it is found
that for model I, the universal EWSL causing all the maximum responses is the same
as those calculated for shear force and bending moment respectively, while for model
II, the universal ESWL causing all the maximum responses agrees well with that for
maximum shear force effects but different from the universal ESWL causing
maximum bending moment.
4.3.1 Application of Universal ESWL to

WERFL building
The universal Equivalent Static Wind Load (ESWL) of WERFL building is studied by
using this method. The assumed frame system for WERFL building which has been
pointed out in Chapter III is also utilized here. The axial force N, shear force Q and
bending moment M at these nine critical sections are the load effects subjective to
consideration. The universal EWSL causing maximum axial forces N, maximum
shear forces Q and maximum bending moments M in all frames with all the three
support conditions is calculated separately for both AOA=0 º and AOA=90 º . The
universal ESWL for all the load effects including maximum axial force N, maximum
shear force Q and maximum bending moment M in all frames is determined. The
eigen modes selected as the basic wind load distribution are the first 5, 10, and 15
modes with norm 1 and large corresponding eigen values. The reason of use of
different eigen modes is to investigate the influence of number of eigen modes on
universal equivalent static wind load.
— 136 —
Suppose N= {N 1 , N 2 ," N n }’ which is the axial force vector composed of maximum
axial forces at nine critical sections of each frame, the total maximum axial force
considered is n. I N = [ I ' N 1 , I ' N 2, " I ' Nn ] , are the influence matrix, each row of the
matrix is influence function of axial force at those 9 critical sections of each frame,
Φ = [φ1 , φ 2 ,"φ n 0 ] , is the eigen mode matrix which is composed of n0 selected eigen
modes for calculation, in this case, n0 is 5, 10 and 15 respectively.
So the expression of determination of contribution vector CN = {c1 , c 2 ," c n } for

'
estimating maximum axial force is as follow:
N = I N ΦC N = N 0 C N (4.11)
Where N 0 is the product of influence matrix and eigen mode matrix, ith row of which
is the corresponding ith axial force produced by the n0 eigen modes respectively.
For shear force and bending moment, the same kind of procedure can be used and
different contribution vector C S and C M are determined. The universal equivalent
static wind load for maximum axial force, shear force and bending moment are ΦC N ,
ΦC S and ΦC M respectively. Besides these three sets of universal equivalent static

wind load, another universal equivalent static wind load causing all the maximum
internal forces of interest, that is, the maximum axial forces N, maximum shear forces
Q and maximum bending moments M can also be determined, in this case, the
expression of determination of contribution vector C is as follows.
R = IΦC = R0 C (4.12)
⎧ I ' N1 , ⎫
⎪ ⎪
⎪" ⎪
⎪I ' ⎪
⎪ Nn ⎪
⎪I ' ⎪
⎪⎪ Q1 ⎪⎪
where R = {N 1 , N 2 , " N n , Q1 , Q2 , " Qn , M 1 , M 2 , " M n } , I = ⎨" ⎬ ,
'
⎪I ' ⎪
⎪ Qn ⎪
⎪I ' ⎪
⎪ M1 ⎪
⎪" ⎪
⎪ ' ⎪
⎪⎩ I M n ⎪⎭
Φ = [φ1 , φ 2 ,"φ n0 ]
— 137 —
Once combination factor C is decided, the universal equivalent static wind load for all
the maximum internal forces is ΦC .
Table 4.1~Table 4.3 list combination coefficients and the corresponding contribution
factors of the 5, 10 and 15 eigen modes for maximum axial force, shear force, bending
moment, and also those for all the maximum load effects when AOA=0 º .
Combination coefficients are listed in the left column and contribution factors are
listed in the right column for maximum axial force N, maximum shear force Q,
maximum bending moment M, and all the responses NQM respectively.
Table 4.4~Table 4.6 list combination coefficients and the corresponding contribution
factors of the 5, 10 and 15 eigen modes for maximum axial force, shear force, bending
moment, and also those for all the maximum load effects when AOA=90 º . The
relationship between the contribution coefficients and mode number at AOA=0º and
AOA=90º is shown in Figure 4.17 and Figure 4.18 respectively.
It should be noted that in the first row of Table 4.1~Table 4.6, N means ‘only axial
forces in the frames are considered’, Q means ‘only shear forces in the frames are
considered’, M means ‘only bending moments in the frames are considered’, NQM
means ‘all the axial forces, shear forces and bending moments in the frames are
considered’.
From Table 4.1~Table 4.6, it can be seen that the contribution factor of the first mode
is not always the largest one, and the contribution factor is not necessarily decreasing
with mode number, for example, the contribution factor of mode 9 of universal ESWL
for maximum bending moment M when AOA=0º is the largest one.
The contour plots of universal equivalent static wind loads for maximum axial force,
maximum shear force, maximum bending moment and all the responses when five,
ten and fifteen eigen modes are used are shown in Figure 4.19~Figure 4.22, Figure
4.27~Figure 4.30, and Figure 4.35~Figure 4.38 respectively for AOA=0 º . The
corresponding pressure distributions on the four frames corresponding to these
universal ESWLs are shown in Appendix II.
The comparisons between actual responses and responses calculated by universal

ESWL when five, ten and fifteen eigen modes are used for AOA=0º are shown in
Figure 4.23~Figure 4.26, Figure 4.31~Figure 4.34 and Figure 4.39~Figure 4.42
— 138 —
respectively. From these figures, it can be seen that the axial responses of all the
critical sections calculated by universal ESWL fit actual axial forces well since the
scatter data are always around the straight line which represents that the x axis and y
axis are equal. But for shear force and bending moment, data are not scattered close to
the straight line and it is found that the actual responses are usually larger than the
corresponding responses calculated by universal ESWL. It can also be seen that for
different responses, corresponding universal ESWL’s are also different and for the
same kind of response, universal ESWL’s based on different eigen modes are also
different, but the difference can be neglected.
The contour plots of universal equivalent static wind loads for maximum axial force,
maximum shear force, maximum bending moment and all the responses when only
five, ten and fifteen eigen modes are used are shown in Figure 4.43~Figure 4.46,
Figure 4.51~Figure 4.54, and Figure 4.59~Figure 4.62 respectively for AOA=90º .
The corresponding pressure distributions on the four frames corresponding to these
universal ESWL’s are also shown in Appendix II. The comparisons between actual
responses and responses calculated by universal ESWL when five, ten and fifteen
eigen modes are used for AOA=90º are shown in Figure 4.47~Figure 4.50, Figure
4.55~Figure 4.58 and Figure 4.63~Figure 4.66 respectively. For the case with
AOA=90 º , similar results about the comparison between actual responses and
responses calculated by universal ESWL’s when AOA=0º can be obtained.
This method for determination of universal equivalent static wind load (ESWL) gives
some insight into the exploration of wind loads on buildings, and the utilization of
eigen modes is also physically meaningful, since eigen modes can represent some
significant fluctuating pressure phenomena in many cases; however eigen modes
seems a little bit complicated for application.
From the results for both cases with AOA=0º and AOA=90º, it seems a little bit
difficult to quantify a universal ESWL for all the responses which can produce
responses fitting the actual responses quite well. The difficulty to quantify a universal
ESWL for all the responses is due to the variety of influence functions of responses
considered. For responses with similar influence functions such as axial forces at
these critical sections, universal equivalent static wind load will produce responses
which fit well with the actual ones. However for responses with quite different
— 139 —
influence functions such as shear force and bending moment, it is hard to find a
universal EWSL to satisfy the requirement that it will produce responses fitting well
with the actual responses.
It should be pointed out that the universal ESWL’s for axial force, shear force, and
bending moment thus calculated in the above take all the nine critical sections and
three support conditions into consideration. For example, if universal ESWL for axial
force N is calculated, the axial forces include axial force at nine critical sections with
three support conditions under wind load action at a specific angle of attack (AOA).
The reason not to divide responses according to different support condition is that a
uniform universal ESWL suitable for all the three kind of structure system is the
object wind load. The responses for each kind of support condition can also be fitted
by the same kind of universal ESWL method, but it is found that thus calculated
universal ESWL’s based on five, ten, and fifteen eigen modes are not practical since
for axial force, shear force and bending moment, all the universal ESWL’s pressure
distributions have some very large values at some points which makes the universal
ESWL method unfeasible; so the results are not listed here.
4.3.2 Modified Universal Equivalent Static

Wind Load
The universal equivalent static wind load proposed by Katsumura and Tamura at el
(Katsumura, 2005) is based on determination of a set of combination coefficients for
eigen modes of the covariance matrix of the fluctuating pressure field. However for
fluctuating pressure field, the eigen modes are a little bit complicated and it is hard to
predict the distribution of eigen modes, even for the first several eigen modes with
large eigen value. And it can be seen that the pressure distribution of universal
ESWL’s based on eigen modes for each kind of structure response is not regular and
is a little bit hard to be used for practice use.
So maybe pressure distributions or wind loading distributions used for combination

can be substituted by another set of wind pressure distributions. For the WERFL
building, maximum base shear force FX, maximum base shear force FY, maximum lift
force FZ and maximum torsional moment MT at the base of the building are responses
which have no relationship with structure systems. And in Chapter II, these wind
forces are also used to derive the wind load combination formula. The pressure
— 140 —
distributions which will produce maximum base shear force FX, maximum base shear
force FY, maximum lift force FZ and maximum torsional moment MT can be
determined by Load-Response Correlation(LRC) method (Kasperski, 1992) or by
conditional sampling.
Once the pressure distributions based on LRC method which can produce maximum
base shear force FX, maximum base shear force FY, maximum lift force FZ and
maximum torsional moment MT at the base of the building are decided, these four
wind loads or wind pressure distributions can be utilized as basic loads for
combination in the universal ESWL method. In this case, four coefficients need to be
determined for the four basic pressure distributions.
For example, the expression of determination of contribution vector CN

= {c1 , c 2 , " c n } for estimating maximum axial force is as follow:
'
N = I N PC N = N 0 C N (4.12)
where N is the maximum axial forces at 9 critical sections of each frame with three
⎧ I ' N1 , ⎫
⎪ ' ⎪
⎪I N ⎪
support conditions, IN is the influence matrix for axial forces, I N = ⎨ 2 ⎬ , and P is
⎪" ⎪
⎪I ' ⎪
⎩ Nn ⎭
the combination wind load matrix or combination pressure distribution matrix with
four columns, P = [ PC x , PC y , PC z , PCt ] , PC x , PC y , PC z , PCt are the pressure distribution
based on LRC method which can produce maximum base shear force FX, maximum
base shear force FY, maximum lift force FZ and maximum torsional moment MT at the
base of the building respectively. Now N 0 is the product of influence matrix and wind
pressure distribution matrix, ith row of which is the corresponding ith axial force
produced by pressure distributions calculated based on LRC formula for maximum
base shear force FX, maximum base shear force FY, maximum lift force FZ and
maximum torsional moment MT at the base of the building respectively. And also by
using singular value decomposition, a coefficient vector with four elements can be
decided, a corresponding universal equivalent static wind load for maximum axial
force can be determined as PC N .
For shear forces and bending moments, the same kind of procedure can be used and
— 141 —
different contribution vector C S and C M are determined. The universal ESWL for
maximum axial force, maximum shear force and maximum bending moment are
PC N , PC S and PC M respectively. Besides the three sets of universal equivalent static
wind load, another universal equivalent static wind load can also be determined based
on all the maximum internal forces of interest including the maximum axial forces N,
maximum shear forces Q and maximum bending moments M of the nine critical
sections with three different support conditions, in this case, the expression of
determination of contribution vector C is as follows.
R = IPC = R0 C (4.13)
⎧ I ' N1 , ⎫
⎪ ⎪
⎪" ⎪
⎪I ' ⎪
⎪ Nn ⎪
⎪I ' ⎪
⎪⎪ Q1 ⎪⎪
where R = {N 1 , N 2 , " N n , Q1 , Q2 , " Qn , M 1 , M 2 , " M n } , I = ⎨" ⎬ ,
'
⎪I ' ⎪
⎪ Qn ⎪
⎪I ' ⎪
⎪ M1 ⎪
⎪" ⎪
⎪ ' ⎪
⎪⎩ I M n ⎪⎭
P = [ PC x , PC y , PC z , PCt ]
Once combination factor C is decided, the universal equivalent static wind load for all
the maximum internal forces is PC .
Table 4.7 lists the combination coefficients and corresponding contribution factors of
the 4 basic combination pressure distributions for maximum axial force N, shear force
Q, bending moment M, and also those for all the maximum internal forces NQM for
AOA=0o respectively.
In Table 4.7, combination coefficients are listed in the left column and contribution
factors are listed in the right column for universal ESWL of maximum axial force N,
maximum shear force Q, maximum bending moment M, and all the responses NQM
respectively.
From Table 4.7, it can be seen that the contribution coefficients of extreme pressure
distribution causing maximum base shear force FX at the building base is almost the
— 142 —
largest one except for universal ESWL of maximum axial force N. Besides
contribution coefficient of extreme pressure distribution causing maximum base shear
FX, the coefficient of extreme pressure distribution causing maximum lift force FZ is
also large except for universal ESWL of maximum shear force Q. For extreme
pressure distribution causing maximum base shear force FY, the corresponding
contribution coefficient is always small. As far as contribution coefficient of pressure
distribution causing maximum torsional moment, it is relatively large for universal
ESWL of shear forces at critical sections.
Table 4.8 lists the combination coefficients and corresponding contribution factors of
the 4 basic combination pressure distributions for maximum axial force N, shear force
Q, bending moment M, and also those for all the maximum internal forces NQM for
AOA=90º respectively.
As Table 4.7, in Table 4.8, combination coefficients are listed in the left column and
contribution factors are listed in the right column.
From Table 4.8, it can be seen that the contribution factors of extreme pressure
distribution causing maximum base shear force FY and maximum lift force FZ at the
building base are always the largest ones for universal ESWL of maximum axial force
N, maximum shear force and bending moments. The contribution factor of extreme
pressure distribution causing maximum base shear force FX and maximum torsional
moment MZ are relatively small for all the universal EWSL’s of maximum axial force,
maximum shear force and maximum bending moment.
Figure 4.67~Figure 4.70 show the universal equivalent static pressure distributions
around the building surface for maximum axial forces N, maximum shear forces Q,
and maximum bending moments M, and all the responses at 9 critical sections of
frames based on combination of pressure distributions calculated by LRC formula
which will produce maximum base shear FX, maximum base shear FY, maximum lift
force MZ and maximum torsional moment MT respectively for AOA=0 º . The
universal ESWL pressure distributions of maximum internal forces for AOA=0 º
along the four frames are shown in the Appendix II.
Figure 4.71~Figure 4.74 compare the responses under the action of universal ESWL’s
and corresponding actual maximum responses for AOA=0º.
— 143 —
From Figure 4.71~Figure 4.74, it can be seen that compared to universal ESWL based
on combination of POD eigen modes, universal ESWL based on combination of
maximum pressure distribution of base shear forces FX and FY, lift force FZ and
torsional moment MT can produce responses fitting better with actual responses.
Figure 4.75~Figure 4.78 show the universal equivalent static pressure distributions
around the building surface for maximum axial forces N, maximum shear forces Q,
and maximum bending moments M, and all the responses at nine critical sections of
frames based on combination of pressure distributions calculated by LRC formula
which will produce maximum base shear FX, maximum base shear FY, maximum lift
force MZ and maximum torsional moment MT respectively for AOA=90 º . The
universal ESWL pressure distributions of maximum internal forces for AOA=90 º
along the four frames are also shown in the Appendix II.
Figure 4.79~Figure 4.82 compare the responses under the action of universal ESWL’s
and corresponding actual maximum responses for AOA=90º.
From Figure 4.79~Figure 4.82, it can be seen that compared to universal ESWL based
on combination of POD eigen modes, the modified universal ESWL based on
combination of maximum pressure distribution of base shear forces FX and FY, lift
force FZ and torsional moment MT can produce responses fitting better with actual
responses. And it seems that the fitting condition for AOA=90º is much better than
that for case AOA=0 º . For both case AOA=0 º , and AOA=90 º , the modified
universal ESWL method looks much better than the usually used universal ESWL
method. So for low-rise building, the modified universal ESWL method may be used
instead of the usually used universal ESWL method.
4.4 Concluding remarks
In this chapter, equivalent static wind load for low-rise building is investigated.
Pressure distributions based on load and response correlation(LRC) method are
discussed and compared to extreme pressure distribution based on conditional
sampling, equivalent pressure distribution based on gust loading envelop(GLE)
multiplied by background factor and equivalent pressure distribution based on mean
pressure distribution multiplied by gust response factor. The ESWL pressure
distributions based on conditional sampling are similar to the ESWL pressure
— 144 —
distribution based on LRC method. ESWL pressure distributions based on GLE and
ESWL pressure distributions based on mean pressure distribution have some common
characteristics, both of them are obtained by some basic pressure distributions
multiplied by a certain factor; for ESWL pressure distribution based on mean pressure
distribution, a gust response factor is used, for ESWL pressure distribution based on
GLE, a background factor is used. ESWL pressure distributions based on LRC
method and conditional sampling are dependent on individual response which limits
the application of these methods. Usually it is supposed that ESWL pressure
distribution based on a common basic pressure distribution is more usable. However
from the study, it is noted that although a common basic pressure distribution can be
decided, a certain factor such as gust response factor or background factor is also
dependent on individual responses, and it is hard to quantify a uniform factor for all
the responses. Besides those common ESWL methods, a universal ESWL method is
studied. The universal ESWL method is based on the idea that a common universal
ESWL for a certain structure system can produce responses fitting all the actual
responses well. A set of basic pressure distribution must be decided first and then a set
of combination coefficients is decided based on least square method. The universal
ESWL proposed by Tamura is based on eigen modes of the covariance matrix of the
fluctuating pressure around the structure, however, the eigen modes of the covariance
matrix are a little bit difficult to decide; besides this universal ESWL, a modified
universal ESWL method is proposed in this chapter. Compared to the usually defined
universal ESWL, this modified universal ESWL utilized the pressure distributions
which can cause maximum base shear forces, maximum lift force and torsional
moment as the combination pressure distribution set. Compared to the combination
pressure distributions consisted of eigen modes of a certain structure system, the
extreme pressure distributions corresponding to maximum shear forces, lift force and
torsional moment are more easily to be determined. In this chapter, both methods are
applied to WEFL building, and the responses under the modified universal ESWL are
much closer to the actual responses than those under the universal ESWL based on
eigen modes.
Reference
Davenport, A. G. (1967). Gust loading factors. J. Struct. Div. ASCE, Vol.93, No.1,
pp.11–34.
— 145 —
Holmes, J. D. (2002a). “Gust loading factor to dynamic response factor (1967-2002).”
Symp. Preprints, Engineering, Symp. to Honor Alan G. Davenport for his 40
years of Contributions, The Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada,
June 20-22, A1–1–A1–8.
Kareem, A., and Zhou, Y. (2003). “Gust loading factor—Past, present, and future.” J.
Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., Vol.91, No.12–15, pp.1301–1328.
Kasperski, M. (1992). “Extreme wind load distributions for linear and nonlinear
design.” Eng. Struct., Vol.14, pp.27–34.
A. Katsumura, Y. Tamura, O. Nakamura (2005), Universal wind load distribution

simultaneously reproducing maximum load effects in all subject members on
large-span cantilevered roof, EACWE4 — The Fourth European & African
Conference on Wind Engineering J. Naprstek & C. Fischer (eds); ITAM AS CR,
Prague, 11-15 July, 2005
Piccardo, G., and Solari, G. (2000). Three-dimensional wind-excited response of

slender structures: Closed-form solution. J. Struct. Eng., Vo.126, No.8, pp.936–
943.
Repetto, M. P., and Solari, G. (2004). “Equivalent static wind actions on vertical
structures.” J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., Vol.100, No.7, pp.1032–1040.
Zhou, Y., and Kareem, A. (2001). “Gust loading factor: New model.” J.Struct. Eng.,
Vol.127, No.2, pp.168–175.
— 146 —
Table 4.1 Combination coefficients and contribution factor (AOA=0º)
Mode
N Q M NQM
Number
1 -13.03 78.74% -1.39 7.28% -2.92 9.69% -10.56 85.33%
2 -0.1 0.59% 7.1 37.18% -8.99 29.79% 0.65 5.21%
3 0.65 3.92% 2.32 12.14% 3.8 12.59% 0.07 0.56%
4 -1.26 7.59% -4.82 25.23% 5.53 18.32% -0.3 2.41%
5 -1.52 9.17% 3.47 18.17% -8.93 29.61% -0.8 6.49%
Mode
N Q M NQM
Number
1 -12.09 43.35% 7.53 4.79% -4.71 6.57% -10.08 59.77%
2 -0.27 0.96% 30.79 19.59% -2.01 2.8% 0.66 3.91%
3 -2.4 8.62% 20.16 12.83% 13.47 18.79% -1.43 8.48%
4 -0.52 1.85% -12.03 7.65% -2.93 4.09% -0.1 0.59%
5 -1.97 7.06% -4.04 2.57% -9.27 12.93% -0.48 2.82%
6 -0.27 0.96% 50.11 31.88% -15.18 21.17% 1.07 6.32%
7 4.53 16.23% -8.68 5.52% 7.9 11.02% 0.43 2.53%
8 -1.14 4.08% -0.85 0.54% 7.65 10.68% -1.3 7.73%
9 -2.68 9.61% 7.91 5.03% 2.92 4.08% -0.35 2.05%
10 -2.03 7.3% -15.09 9.6% 5.65 7.88% -0.98 5.81%
Mode
N Q M NQM
Number
1 -13.25 20.32% 2.11 1.17% -23.16 9.45% -10.2 10.49%
2 -3 4.61% 17.91 9.91% -5.5 2.25% -3.69 3.79%
3 -5.33 8.18% -2.08 1.15% -37.36 15.25% -14.19 14.6%
4 -0.25 0.39% 5.95 3.29% 10.82 4.42% 6.83 7.03%
5 -1.13 1.73% 11.16 6.17% 23.69 9.67% 0.77 0.79%
6 -1.64 2.51% 62.68 34.67% 1.57 0.64% 2.26 2.32%
7 2.55 3.92% -14.48 8.01% 8.8 3.59% 4.02 4.14%
8 -0.33 0.51% -5.01 2.77% -0.66 0.27% -3.06 3.15%
9 -16.58 25.42% 0.59 0.33% -46.36 18.93% -21.87 22.5%
10 6.12 9.39% -21.96 12.15% 42.46 17.33% 6.49 6.68%
11 -7.13 10.93% 6.4 3.54% -16.02 6.54% -5.83 6.00%
12 -0.93 1.42% -9.44 5.22% -16.59 6.77% -7.96 8.19%
13 -1.19 1.83% -0.19 0.11% -3.08 1.26% 2.06 2.12%
14 -1.17 1.8% -6.46 3.58% 1.64 0.67% -6.02 6.19%
15 -4.6 7.05% 14.35 7.94% -7.26 2.96% -1.95 2.01%
— 147 —
Mode
N Q M NQM
Number
1 -13.89 57.37% 10.04 44.18% -15.64 31.26% -10.83 47.74%
2 -1.53 6.30% 5.39 23.72% -13.32 26.62% -2.51 11.09%
3 -3.86 15.95% -2.57 11.32% -3.64 7.28% -6.35 28%
4 -2.18 9% -0.81 3.57% 4.29 8.58% -0.61 2.68%
5 -2.75 11.37% -3.91 17.21% 13.14 26.26% 2.38 10.49%
Mode
N Q M NQM
Number
1 -12.78 45.58% 9.12 8.39% -34.58 28.65% -15.01 27.83%
2 -0.51 1.81% 25.37 23.35% -4.69 3.89% -5.59 10.37%
3 -0.37 1.31% -15.93 14.66% -6.28 5.2% -1.95 3.62%
4 -0.62 2.23% -4.69 4.32% 12.89 10.68% 3.71 6.87%
5 -1.28 4.56% -3.12 2.87% 23.58 19.54% 4.17 7.74%
6 -4.53 16.14% 1.27 1.17% -4.25 3.52% -0.76 1.4%
7 1.78 6.34% 10.48 9.64% -3.79 3.14% -4.21 7.81%
8 1.51 5.38% -11.96 11.01% 12.87 10.66% 8.42 15.61%
9 -1.42 5.06% 10.15 9.34% -12.48 10.34% -10.1 18.72%
10 3.25 11.6% -16.57 15.25% -5.28 4.38% 0.01 0.02%
Mode
N Q M NQM
Number
1 -18.41 29.45% 28.21 15.07% -77.16 27.83% -35.12 26.12%
2 4.75 7.59% 4.15 2.22% 4.28 1.54% -2.79 2.08%
3 -1.91 3.05% -14.83 7.92% -15.23 5.5% -8.85 6.58%
4 2.35 3.75% -18.07 9.65% -4.43 1.6% 2.22 1.65%
5 2.51 4.01% -12.73 6.8% 13.43 4.84% 5.48 4.08%
6 -3.17 5.07% 3.25 1.74% 14.32 5.16% 5.49 4.08%
7 1.84 2.94% 8.42 4.5% -5.55 2% -2.7 2.01%
8 2.67 4.27% -23.22 12.41% 12.3 4.44% -6.27 4.66%
9 -3.53 5.64% 16.26 8.69% -34.52 12.45% -9.78 7.27%
10 5.6 8.95% -16.84 8.99% -37.73 13.61% -9.67 7.19%
11 -0.99 1.58% -13.07 6.98% 28.1 10.13% 3.91 2.91%
12 0.83 1.33% -10.28 5.49% -5.61 2.02% -19.42 14.45%
13 4.73 7.57% -7.96 4.25% -1.03 0.37% 0.81 0.60%
14 -2.39 3.82% -8.12 4.34% -22.02 7.94% -8.8 6.54%
15 6.86 10.96% -1.8 0.96% -1.51 0.55% 13.15 9.78%
— 148 —
Table 4.7 Combination coefficients and contribution coefficients (AOA=0º)
N Q M NQM
LRCx 0.54 30.83% 1.35 63.74% 5.42 57.76% 1.04 52.30%
LRCy -0.22 12.23% -0.18 8.43% 0.00 0.05% -0.07 3.69%
LRCz 1.00 56.76% 0.21 9.96% -3.55 37.82% 0.52 26.09%
LRCt 0.00 0.18% 0.38 17.88% 0.41 4.37% 0.35 17.92%
Table 4.8 Combination coefficients and contribution coefficients (AOA=90º)
N Q M NQM
LRCx 0.03 0.37% -0.44 6.57% -0.19 5.76% -0.33 7.17%
LRCy 3.97 53.99% 2.90 42.81% 0.81 24.54% 1.78 39.19%
LRCz 3.34 45.49% 3.32 49.06% 2.18 66.32% 2.42 53.35%
LRCt -0.01 0.15% -0.11 1.57% -0.11 3.38% 0.01 0.29%
— 149 —
Figure 4.1 Mean Pressure Distribution on Frame B (AOA=0º) Figure 4.3 ESWL pressure distribution based on LRC on Frame B at critical
section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support condition fix-fix
— 150 —
(AOA=0º)
Figure 4.2 ESWL pressure distribution based on Conditional Sampling on Figure 4.4 ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE on Frame B at critical
Frame B at critical section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support condition fix-fix
condition fix-fix (AOA=0º) (AOA=0º)
Figure 4.7 ESWL pressure distribution based on LRC on Frame C at critical
Figure 4.5 Mean Pressure Distribution on Frame C (AOA=0º) section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support condition fix-fix
— 151 —
(AOA=0º)
Figure 4.6 ESWL pressure distribution based on Conditional Sampling on

Frame C at critical section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support Figure 4.8 ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE on Frame C at critical
condition fix-fix (AOA=0º) section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support condition fix-fix
(AOA=0º)
Figure 4.9 Mean Pressure Distribution on Frame B (AOA=90º) Figure 4.11 ESWL pressure distribution based on LRC on Frame B at critical
section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support condition fix-fix
— 152 —
(AOA=90º)
Figure 4.10 ESWL pressure distribution based on Conditional Sampling on Figure 4.12 ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE on Frame B at critical
Frame B at critical section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support condition fix-fix
Figure 4.15 ESWL pressure distribution based on LRC on Frame C at critical
Figure 4.13 Mean Pressure Distribution on Frame C (AOA=90º) section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support condition fix-fix
— 153 —
(AOA=90º)
Figure 4.14 ESWL pressure distribution based on Conditional Sampling on Figure 4.16 ESWL pressure distribution based on GLE on Frame C at critical
Frame C at critical section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support section 3 causing maximum bending moment with support condition fix-fix
50 30
MCforN MCforN MCforN
80
MCforQ MCforQ MCforQ
MCforM 40 MCforM MCforM
Contribution Factor (%)

MCforNQM MCforNQM MCforNQM
60 20
30
40
20
10
20 10
0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Mode Number Mode Number Mode Number
(a) mode number=5 (b) mode number=10 (c) mode number=15
Figure 4.17 The relationship between the contribution coefficients and mode number at AOA=0º
— 154 —
60 50
MCforN MCforN MCforN
MCforQ MCforQ 30 MCforQ
MCforM 40 MCforM MCforM

MCforNQM MCforNQM MCforNQM
40
30
20
20
20
10
10
0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Mode Number Mode Number Mode Number
(a) mode number=5 (b) mode number=10 (c) mode number=15
Figure 4.18 The relationship between the contribution coefficients and mode number at AOA=90º
Figure 4.19 Universal ESWL distribution reproducing maximum axial force N (AOA=0º, mode
number=5)
Figure 4.20 Universal ESWL distribution reproducing maximum shear force Q (AOA=0º, mode
number=5)
— 155 —
Figure 4.21 Universal ESWL distribution reproducing maximum bending moment M (AOA=0º,
mode number=5)
Figure 4.22 Universal ESWL distribution reproducing all maximum load effects simultaneously
(AOA=0º, mode number=5)
— 156 —
Figure 4.23 Comparison of Actual Maximum Axial Forces and Axial Forces Figure 4.25 Comparison of Actual Maximum Bending Moments and Bending
—
under Universal ESWL (AOA=0º, mode number=5) Moments under Universal ESWL (AOA=0º, mode number=5)
157 —
Figure 4.24 Comparison of Actual Maximum Shear Forces and Shear Forces Figure 4.26 Comparison of Actual Maximum Responses and Responses under
under Universal ESWL (AOA=0º, mode number=5) Universal ESWL (AOA=0º, mode number=5)
number=10)
number=10)
— 158 —
mode number=10)
— 159 —
—
160 —
number=15)
number=15)
— 161 —
mode number=15)
— 162 —
— 163 —
number=5)
number=5)
— 164 —
mode number=5)
— 165 —
— 166 —
number=10)
number=10)
— 167 —
mode number=10)
— 168 —
—
169 —
number=15)
number=15)
— 170 —
mode number=15)
— 171 —
—
172 —
Figure 4.67 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum axial force N
(AOA=0º)
Figure 4.68 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum shear force Q
(AOA=0º)
— 173 —
Figure 4.69 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum bending moment M
(AOA=0º)
Figure 4.70 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing all the maximum internal forces
N,Q,M (AOA=0º)
— 174 —
—
under Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=0º) Moments under Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=0º)
175 —
under Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=0º) Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=0º)
Figure 4.75 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum axial force N
(AOA=90º)
Figure 4.76 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum shear force Q
(AOA=90º)
— 176 —
Figure 4.77 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing maximum bending moment M
(AOA=90º)
Figure 4.78 Modified Universal ESWL Distribution reproducing all the maximum internal forces
N,Q,M (AOA=90º)
— 177 —
—
under Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=90º) Moments under Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=90º)
178 —
under Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=90º) Modified Universal ESWL (AOA=90º)
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONTRIBUTIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
The primary goal of this dissertation is to investigate wind induced responses of low-
rise buildings and associated wind loading. Actually, this topic has been studied for a
long time and it has long been the main focus of wind engineering. The study on wind
induced response and wind loading is very complicated due to various structure
systems and environments around the structures and some other factors. In wind
engineering, a simple and efficient wind loading description is usually the target for
engineering practice.
In chapter I, the evolution of investigation of wind induced responses and wind

loading is described as a literature review. Some methods proposed for wind loading
and wind induced responses have been discussed in detail in chapter I, and their
advantages and disadvantages are compared to each other. In chapter II, some basic
pressure distributions such as mean pressure distribution, fluctuating pressure
distribution, and extreme pressure distributions corresponding to maximum base shear
forces, lift force and base torsional moment are investigated to give some insight into
the relationship between these forces and their correlation to each other. Besides these
basic pressure distribution characteristics, a frame structure system is assumed for
WERFL building of Texas Tech University, the integrated six forces at the base of the
building including two base shear forces, lift force, two bending moments, and
torsional moment are applied to WERFL building, the induced normal and shear
stresses in four columns are calculated, and the combination of these forces is
discussed and a formula of wind loading combination is proposed and shows some
potential to be used in codes and standards. In chapter III, another frame system is
assumed for WERFL building, four frames are considered in this system. Axial force,
shear force and bending moment at nine critical sections along each frame under wind
action with AOA=0o and AOA=90o are considered, and mean responses, maximum
dynamic responses, and responses under gust loading envelop are calculated.
Corresponding gust response factors and background factors are obtained, some
characteristics of these factors are discussed. In chapter IV, equivalent static wind
— 179 —
load is discussed for WERFL building, equivalent static wind load based on LRC
method, equivalent static wind load equal to mean pressure distribution multiplied by
gust response factor, and equivalent static wind load equal to gust loading envelop
multiplied by background factor are compared. Besides all these equivalent static
wind methods, universal equivalent static wind load method proposed by Tamura and
a proposed modified universal equivalent static wind load method are applied to
WERFL building, the responses calculated by both universal equivalent static wind
loads are compared and discussed.
5.2 Contributions
For wind induced responses and wind loading, this dissertation has made the
following contributions:
1. For building with certain geometry, some basic pressure distributions around
the building are investigated in detail.
2. From these pressure distributions, the relationship between along-wind,

across-wind, lift-force and torsional moment at the base of the building is
studied and the correlation between these forces is investigated. And it is
found that torsional moment is more correlated with across-wind loading than
with along-wind loading.
3. Wind load combination between integrated shear forces, lift force and
torsional moment at the base of a building is studied and a wind load
combination formula is derived with a potential to be used in codes and
standards
4. Wind induced responses for a building with a frame system are studied for two
wind angle of attack, AOA=0o and AOA=90o. For each frame, internal forces
of nine critical sections are investigated, and mean responses, maximum
dynamic responses and responses under gust loading envelop are calculated in
detail. Corresponding gust response factors and background factors are also
calculated which provides a clear view of the variance of these factors and
proves that gust response factor and background factor are sensitive to the
specific response considered. The internal responses calculated from pressure
time history are compared to the responses calculated by ASCE7-05, and It is
found that ASCE may underestimate some responses, and it is not necessarily
— 180 —
conservative for all the responses.
5. Equivalent static wind load methods are studied in detail based on a full scale
building, which include equivalent static wind loads assumed as mean pressure
distribution multiplied by gust response factor, as gust loading envelop
multiplied by background factor, and equivalent static wind load based on
LRC method. The study of equivalent static wind load provides a clear view
about these widely used methods and the disadvantage involved in each
method is pointed out.
6. Universal equivalent static wind load method proposed by Tamura is applied

to a real building. Different universal equivalent static wind loads based on
different number of eigen modes are compared and it is found that the involve
of more eigen modes can’t make the results fitting better than actual responses.
7. A modified universal equivalent static wind load method is proposed which

makes use of extreme pressure distributions causing maximum base shear
forces, lift force and torsional moment as the basic combination pressure
distribution set. The responses under the action of this universal equivalent
static wind load are compared with actual responses, which shows that the
modified universal equivalent static wind load method is much better than the
usually used one for a given building.
5.3 Recommendations for future research
The following topics are recommended for future research
1. For different low-rise buildings with various geometries, some basic pressure
distributions such as mean pressure distribution, fluctuating pressure
distribution, extreme pressure distributions causing maximum base shear
forces, lift force and base torsional moment are needed to be studied in more
detail.
2. The relationship between along-wind, across-wind, torsional moment of low-

rise buildings needs to be investigated more deeply, since it relates to wind
load combination.
3. Wind load combination is a topic of important, in which the role of torsional

moment is also needed to be studied.
— 181 —
4. Wind induced responses of a building with different structural systems need to
be investigated, corresponding gust response factors and background factors
are important for providing a deep insight in the GRF method and BF method
of equivalent static wind loading.
5. A uniform equivalent static wind load is necessary to be developed which can

produce responses fitting the actual responses well for a building with a certain
structure system. The proposal of this kind of method will greatly simplify
wind loading and will have great potential to be used in wind engineering
practice.
— 182 —
APPENDIX I-PART I: WERFL BUILDING
Table I-I-1 Mean response of Frame A (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)

points N Q M N Q M N Q M
1 63.546 -2.199 0.000 66.018 -5.868 0.000 62.987 -11.820 -77.032
2 63.546 -15.873 50.117 66.018 -19.542 74.059 62.987 -25.494 35.412
3 63.546 -32.657 201.835 66.018 -36.326 249.680 62.987 -42.278 249.535
4 32.657 30.910 -126.373 36.326 30.910 -78.432 42.278 30.381 -74.675
5 32.657 -7.411 -251.674 36.326 -7.411 -203.830 42.278 -7.940 -196.051
6 32.657 -26.607 -140.952 36.326 -26.607 -92.986 42.278 -27.136 -81.295
7 64.032 32.657 180.736 64.032 36.326 228.581 64.561 42.278 244.262
8 64.032 14.169 37.124 64.032 36.326 61.066 64.561 23.791 38.299
9 64.032 0.000 0.000 64.032 36.326 0.000 64.561 9.622 -61.192
Table I-I-2 Absolute maximum total response of Frame A (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)
1 180.760 76.199 0.000 184.364 49.105 0.000 179.956 -62.668 -346.031
2 180.760 -93.338 544.374 184.364 -57.041 323.983 179.956 -73.968 129.152
3 180.760 -114.521 1209.229 184.364 -83.744 738.803 179.956 -99.222 642.293
4 114.521 94.426 -757.773 83.744 94.426 -307.469 99.222 89.447 -248.175
5 114.521 -41.895 -944.359 83.744 -41.895 -562.917 99.222 -37.379 -538.964
6 114.521 -79.482 -645.908 83.744 -79.482 -341.998 99.222 -77.029 -257.432
7 180.883 114.521 796.817 180.883 83.744 658.289 185.540 99.222 611.073
8 180.883 74.850 196.107 180.883 83.744 272.602 185.540 66.318 132.436
9 180.883 0.000 0.000 180.883 83.744 0.000 185.540 53.346 -287.729
Table I-I-3 Absolute maximum dynamic response of Across A (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)
1 117.214 78.397 0.000 118.347 54.973 0.000 116.969 59.701 -268.999
2 117.214 -77.466 494.257 118.347 -37.499 249.924 116.969 -48.473 93.740
3 117.214 -81.864 1007.394 118.347 -47.418 489.123 116.969 -56.944 392.758
4 81.864 63.516 785.094 47.418 63.516 -229.037 56.944 59.066 -173.500
5 81.864 -34.484 -692.685 47.418 -34.484 -359.087 56.944 -29.440 -342.913
6 81.864 -52.875 587.152 47.418 -52.875 -249.012 56.944 -49.893 -176.137
7 116.850 81.864 616.081 116.850 47.418 429.708 120.979 56.944 366.811
8 116.850 60.680 158.983 116.850 47.418 211.536 120.979 42.527 94.137
9 116.850 0.000 0.000 116.850 47.418 0.000 120.979 -57.415 -226.537
— 183 —
Table I-I-4 Dynamic Responses under Absolute Maximum Fluctuating Pressure
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame A (AOA=0º)
1 -205.68 10.82 0.00 -213.67 5.31 0.00 -203.39 18.41 184.50
2 -205.68 69.18 -223.22 -213.67 63.67 -187.72 -203.39 76.77 -87.30
3 -205.68 119.35 -827.91 -213.67 113.85 -756.77 -203.39 126.94 -740.80
4 -119.35 -91.46 151.53 -113.85 -91.46 222.36 -126.94 -89.26 221.97
5 -119.35 23.47 508.34 -113.85 23.47 579.48 -126.94 25.68 562.42
6 -119.35 74.86 184.75 -113.85 74.86 255.50 -126.94 77.07 222.03
7 -201.94 -119.35 -729.86 -201.94 -113.85 -658.72 -204.15 -126.94 -708.78
8 -201.94 -60.68 -158.98 -201.94 -113.85 -123.48 -204.15 -68.27 -89.25
9 -201.94 0.00 0.00 -201.94 -113.85 0.00 -204.15 -7.59 118.43
Table I-I-5 Gust Factor, Frame A (AOA=0º)

1 2.845 35.380 NaN 2.793 -8.368 NaN 2.857 5.302 4.492
2 2.845 5.880 10.862 2.793 2.919 4.375 2.857 2.901 3.647
3 2.845 3.507 5.991 2.793 2.305 2.959 2.857 2.347 2.574
4 3.507 3.055 5.996 2.305 3.055 3.920 2.347 2.944 3.323
5 3.507 5.653 3.752 2.305 5.653 2.762 2.347 4.708 2.749
6 3.507 2.987 4.582 2.305 2.987 3.678 2.347 2.839 3.167
7 2.825 3.507 4.409 2.825 2.305 2.880 2.874 2.347 2.502
8 2.825 5.282 5.282 2.825 2.305 4.464 2.874 2.788 3.458
9 2.825 NaN NaN 2.825 2.305 NaN 2.874 5.544 4.702
Table I-I-6 Background Factor, Frame A (AOA=0º)

1 -0.57 7.25 NaN -0.55 10.35 NaN -0.58 3.24 -1.46
2 -0.57 -1.12 -2.21 -0.55 -0.59 -1.33 -0.58 -0.63 -1.07
3 -0.57 -0.69 -1.22 -0.55 -0.42 -0.65 -0.58 -0.45 -0.53
4 -0.69 -0.69 5.18 -0.42 -0.69 -1.03 -0.45 -0.66 -0.78
5 -0.69 -1.47 -1.36 -0.42 -1.47 -0.62 -0.45 -1.15 -0.61
6 -0.69 -0.71 3.18 -0.42 -0.71 -0.97 -0.45 -0.65 -0.79
7 -0.58 -0.69 -0.84 -0.58 -0.42 -0.65 -0.59 -0.45 -0.52
8 -0.58 -1.00 -1.00 -0.58 -0.42 -1.71 -0.59 -0.62 -1.05
9 -0.58 NaN NaN -0.58 -0.42 NaN -0.59 7.56 -1.91
— 184 —
Table I-I-7 Mean response of Frame B (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)
1 58.262 3.996 0.000 62.024 1.530 0.000 58.995 -3.029 -41.284
2 58.262 -15.843 26.004 62.024 -18.308 42.177 58.995 -22.867 30.149
3 58.262 -40.196 202.035 62.024 -42.662 234.345 58.995 -47.221 251.698
4 40.196 32.777 -123.122 42.662 32.777 -90.723 47.221 33.536 -79.127
5 40.196 -10.879 -248.422 42.662 -10.879 -216.113 47.221 -10.120 -210.176
6 40.196 -32.202 -105.525 42.662 -32.202 -73.111 47.221 -31.443 -72.923
7 60.086 40.196 231.219 60.086 42.662 263.528 59.327 47.221 258.031
8 60.086 17.982 47.113 60.086 42.662 63.286 59.327 25.007 28.465
9 60.086 0.000 0.000 60.086 42.662 0.000 59.327 7.025 -64.123
Table I-I-8 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across B (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)
1 175.201 123.930 0.000 183.597 -68.858 0.000 177.272 -83.756 -488.643
2 175.201 -129.759 790.864 183.597 -77.218 458.287 177.272 -91.594 138.633
3 175.201 -156.477 1653.481 183.597 -128.288 976.448 177.272 -139.152 771.122
4 156.477 116.539 -1379.950 128.288 116.539 -463.262 139.152 108.813 -306.775
5 156.477 -68.471 -1447.947 128.288 -68.471 -683.987 139.152 -51.616 -661.151
6 156.477 -115.588 -914.549 128.288 -115.588 -455.764 139.152 -103.621 -296.544
7 182.548 156.477 900.225 182.548 128.288 1001.960 181.417 139.152 784.499
8 182.548 76.811 201.246 182.548 128.288 472.239 181.417 94.969 132.184
9 182.548 0.000 0.000 182.548 128.288 0.000 181.417 88.182 -502.633
Table I-I-9 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across B (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)
1 116.939 -122.823 0.000 121.574 -70.388 0.000 118.277 -80.728 -447.359
2 116.939 -113.917 764.860 121.574 -58.910 416.111 118.277 -68.727 108.484
3 116.939 -116.281 1451.446 121.574 -85.627 742.104 118.277 -91.931 519.424
4 116.281 83.762 -1256.828 85.627 83.762 -372.539 91.931 75.278 -227.648
5 116.281 -57.593 -1199.525 85.627 -57.593 -467.874 91.931 -41.496 -450.975
6 116.281 -83.386 -809.023 85.627 -83.386 -382.653 91.931 -72.178 -223.620
7 122.462 116.281 669.006 122.462 85.627 738.432 122.090 91.931 526.468
8 122.462 58.829 154.133 122.462 85.627 408.953 122.090 69.962 103.719
9 122.462 0.000 0.000 122.462 85.627 0.000 122.090 81.157 -438.510
— 185 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame B (AOA=0º)
1 -188.33 -0.05 0.00 -199.91 -4.15 0.00 -187.84 7.43 139.47
2 -188.33 64.17 -167.93 -199.91 60.07 -141.78 -187.84 71.65 -76.35
3 -188.33 158.25 -817.86 -199.91 154.15 -765.50 -187.84 165.73 -774.43
4 -158.25 -99.48 188.50 -154.15 -99.48 240.58 -165.73 -99.07 228.75
5 -158.25 27.78 573.52 -154.15 27.78 625.87 -165.73 28.19 610.84
6 -158.25 88.46 190.78 -154.15 88.46 242.80 -165.73 88.87 224.84
7 -187.45 -158.25 -797.10 -187.45 -154.15 -744.75 -187.86 -165.73 -765.82
8 -187.45 -58.83 -154.13 -187.45 -154.15 -127.98 -187.86 -66.31 -74.87
9 -187.45 0.00 0.00 -187.45 -154.15 0.00 -187.86 -7.48 127.27
Table I-I-11 Gust Factor, Frame B (AOA=0º)

1 3.007 31.015 NaN 2.960 -44.999 NaN 3.005 27.654 11.836
2 3.007 8.191 30.413 2.960 4.218 10.866 3.005 4.006 4.598
3 3.007 3.893 8.184 2.960 3.007 4.167 3.005 2.947 3.064
4 3.893 3.556 11.208 3.007 3.556 5.106 2.947 3.245 3.877
5 3.893 6.294 5.829 3.007 6.294 3.165 2.947 5.100 3.146
6 3.893 3.589 8.667 3.007 6.294 6.234 2.947 3.295 4.067
7 3.038 3.893 3.893 3.038 3.007 3.802 3.058 2.947 3.040
8 3.038 4.272 4.272 3.038 3.007 7.462 3.058 3.798 4.644
9 3.038 NaN NaN 3.038 3.007 NaN 3.058 12.553 7.839
Table I-I-12 Background Factor, Frame B (AOA=0º)

1 -0.62 2556.48 NaN -0.61 16.97 NaN -0.63 -10.86 -3.21
2 -0.62 -1.78 -4.55 -0.61 -0.98 -2.93 -0.63 -0.96 -1.42
3 -0.62 -0.73 -1.77 -0.61 -0.56 -0.97 -0.63 -0.55 -0.67
4 -0.73 -0.84 -6.67 -0.56 -0.84 -1.55 -0.55 -0.76 -1.00
5 -0.73 -2.07 -2.09 -0.56 -2.07 -0.75 -0.55 -1.47 -0.74
6 -0.73 -0.94 -4.24 -0.56 -0.94 -1.58 -0.55 -0.81 -0.99
7 -0.65 -0.73 -0.84 -0.65 -0.56 -0.99 -0.65 -0.55 -0.69
8 -0.65 -1.00 -1.00 -0.65 -0.56 -3.20 -0.65 -1.06 -1.39
9 -0.65 NaN NaN -0.65 -0.56 NaN -0.65 -10.85 -3.45
— 186 —
Table I-I-13 Mean response of Frame C (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)
1 24.675 0.960 0.000 26.578 2.022 0.000 24.853 0.768 -11.500
2 24.675 -8.752 19.206 26.578 -7.690 12.377 24.853 -8.943 8.851
3 24.675 -21.317 113.144 26.578 -20.255 99.474 24.853 -21.509 103.969
4 21.317 12.855 -20.553 20.255 12.855 -34.185 21.509 13.045 -31.145
5 21.317 -4.191 -70.548 20.255 -4.191 -84.218 21.509 -4.001 -82.595
6 21.317 -12.153 -16.234 20.255 -12.153 -29.857 21.509 -11.963 -29.686
7 26.286 21.317 121.030 26.286 20.255 107.360 26.096 21.509 106.102
8 26.286 9.334 24.454 26.286 20.255 17.625 26.096 9.525 8.371
9 26.286 0.000 0.000 26.286 20.255 0.000 26.096 0.192 -17.247
Table I-I-14 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across C (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)
1 76.213 80.326 0.000 78.022 51.528 0.000 74.218 54.017 249.675
2 76.213 -81.843 507.997 78.022 -37.583 -232.874 74.218 -39.932 53.820
3 76.213 -92.922 1062.288 78.022 -54.779 484.305 74.218 -56.217 304.698
4 92.922 46.713 725.850 54.779 46.713 -219.698 56.217 40.090 -124.802
5 92.922 -32.114 -610.794 54.779 -32.114 -260.695 56.217 -21.872 -252.213
6 92.922 -44.595 445.673 54.779 -44.595 -224.363 56.217 -38.137 -127.978
7 76.844 92.922 533.185 76.844 54.779 480.025 74.569 56.217 304.249
8 76.844 42.853 112.276 76.844 54.779 226.069 74.569 39.919 51.680
9 76.844 0.000 0.000 76.844 54.779 0.000 74.569 37.319 -238.326
Table I-I-15 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across C (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)
1 51.539 79.366 0.000 51.444 49.507 0.000 49.365 53.249 261.175
2 51.539 -73.091 488.791 51.444 -29.893 -245.251 49.365 -30.989 44.968
3 51.539 -71.605 949.143 51.444 -34.524 384.831 49.365 -34.709 200.730
4 71.605 33.858 746.402 34.524 33.858 -185.513 34.709 27.044 -93.657
5 71.605 -27.923 590.349 34.524 -27.923 -176.477 34.709 -17.872 -169.618
6 71.605 -32.441 461.907 34.524 -32.441 -194.507 34.709 -26.174 -98.292
7 50.558 71.605 412.155 50.558 34.524 372.665 48.473 34.709 198.147
8 50.558 33.520 87.822 50.558 34.524 -230.626 48.473 30.393 43.309
9 50.558 0.000 0.000 50.558 34.524 0.000 48.473 -49.131 243.458
— 187 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame C (AOA=0º)
1 -124.28 -3.58 0.00 -133.11 -5.04 0.00 -125.16 2.13 68.34
2 -124.28 36.15 -80.80 -133.11 34.69 -71.66 -125.16 41.86 -49.14
3 -124.28 107.18 -493.02 -133.11 105.72 -474.69 -125.16 112.89 -498.18
4 -107.18 -59.45 150.39 -105.72 -59.45 168.53 -112.89 -60.39 152.23
5 -107.18 18.74 382.14 -105.72 18.74 400.47 -112.89 17.80 391.16
6 -107.18 58.70 126.76 -105.72 58.70 144.85 -112.89 57.76 142.73
7 -126.05 -107.18 -533.26 -126.05 -105.72 -514.93 -125.11 -112.89 -510.00
8 -126.05 -39.22 -102.77 -126.05 -105.72 -93.62 -125.11 -44.94 -42.80
9 -126.05 0.00 0.00 -126.05 -105.72 0.00 -125.11 -5.71 96.73
Table I-I-17 Gust Factor, Frame C (AOA=0º)

1 3.089 83.700 NaN 2.936 25.488 NaN 2.986 70.322 -21.711
2 3.089 9.352 26.450 2.936 4.887 18.053 2.986 4.465 6.081
3 3.089 4.359 9.389 2.936 2.704 4.869 2.986 2.614 2.931
4 4.359 3.634 -35.317 2.704 3.634 6.427 2.614 3.073 4.007
5 4.359 7.663 8.658 2.704 7.663 3.095 2.614 5.467 3.054
6 4.359 3.669 -27.453 2.704 3.669 7.515 2.614 3.188 4.311
7 2.923 4.359 4.405 2.923 2.704 4.471 2.857 2.614 2.868
8 2.923 4.591 4.591 2.923 2.704 12.827 2.857 4.191 6.174
9 2.923 NaN NaN 2.923 2.704 NaN 2.857 -255.491 13.819
Table I-I-18 Background Factor, Frame C (AOA=0º)

1 -0.41 -22.15 NaN -0.39 -9.81 NaN -0.39 24.99 3.82
2 -0.41 -2.02 -6.05 -0.39 -0.86 3.42 -0.39 -0.74 -0.92
3 -0.41 -0.67 -1.93 -0.39 -0.33 -0.81 -0.39 -0.31 -0.40
4 -0.67 -0.57 4.96 -0.33 -0.57 -1.10 -0.31 -0.45 -0.62
5 -0.67 -1.49 1.54 -0.33 -1.49 -0.44 -0.31 -1.00 -0.43
6 -0.67 -0.55 3.64 -0.33 -0.55 -1.34 -0.31 -0.45 -0.69
7 -0.40 -0.67 -0.77 -0.40 -0.33 -0.72 -0.39 -0.31 -0.39
8 -0.40 -0.85 -0.85 -0.40 -0.33 2.46 -0.39 -0.68 -1.01
9 -0.40 NaN NaN -0.40 -0.33 NaN -0.39 8.60 2.52
— 188 —
Table I-I-19 Mean response of Across D (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)
1 15.859 1.432 0.000 16.693 -0.153 0.000 16.125 -1.708 -13.936
2 15.859 -3.592 3.855 16.693 -5.177 14.188 16.125 -6.733 10.272
3 15.859 -8.966 43.420 16.693 -10.551 64.077 16.125 -12.106 70.212
4 8.966 9.303 -48.421 10.551 9.303 -27.739 12.106 9.576 -23.670
5 8.966 -3.616 -82.329 10.551 -3.616 -61.671 12.106 -3.343 -59.641
6 8.966 -8.649 -40.744 10.551 -8.649 -20.058 12.106 -8.376 -20.091
7 16.930 8.966 53.695 16.930 10.551 74.352 16.657 12.106 72.272
8 16.930 4.280 11.215 16.930 10.551 21.548 16.657 7.421 9.432
9 16.930 0.000 0.000 16.930 10.551 0.000 16.657 3.140 -22.146
Table I-I-20 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across D (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)
1 37.936 21.143 0.000 39.528 11.339 0.000 38.363 -12.775 -81.440
2 37.936 -21.956 118.001 39.528 -15.664 76.385 38.363 -19.231 29.875
3 37.936 -28.613 278.040 39.528 -24.808 195.198 38.363 -28.247 173.262
4 28.613 25.438 -238.737 24.808 25.438 -93.075 28.247 24.626 -63.771
5 28.613 -13.241 -268.249 24.808 -13.241 -153.575 28.247 -10.318 -147.856
6 28.613 -22.446 -151.872 24.808 -22.446 -82.250 28.247 -20.996 -59.490
7 40.777 28.613 168.564 40.777 24.808 207.244 41.003 28.247 174.360
8 40.777 14.185 37.166 40.777 24.808 86.041 41.003 19.651 29.540
9 40.777 0.000 0.000 40.777 24.808 0.000 41.003 14.405 -92.324
Table I-I-21 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across D (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=0º)
1 22.076 19.710 0.000 22.834 11.492 0.000 22.238 11.760 -67.505
2 22.076 -18.364 114.146 22.834 -10.487 62.197 22.238 -12.499 19.604
3 22.076 -19.647 234.620 22.834 -14.257 131.121 22.238 -16.140 103.050
4 19.647 16.134 -190.317 14.257 16.134 -65.335 16.140 15.049 -40.101
5 19.647 -9.626 -185.920 14.257 -9.626 -91.904 16.140 -6.976 -88.214
6 19.647 -13.796 -111.129 14.257 -13.796 -62.192 16.140 -12.619 -39.400
7 23.847 19.647 114.869 23.847 14.257 132.892 24.346 16.140 102.089
8 23.847 9.905 25.951 23.847 14.257 64.493 24.346 12.230 20.108
9 23.847 0.000 0.000 23.847 14.257 0.000 24.346 11.264 -70.177
— 189 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame D (AOA=0º)
1 -33.60 -2.04 0.00 -35.85 -1.66 0.00 -33.77 0.50 22.13
2 -33.60 10.26 -18.97 -35.85 10.64 -21.53 -33.77 12.80 -13.21
3 -33.60 27.55 -130.49 -35.85 27.93 -135.61 -33.77 30.09 -141.16
4 -27.55 -18.10 51.44 -27.93 -18.10 46.27 -30.09 -18.28 42.12
5 -27.55 5.44 119.09 -27.93 5.44 113.97 -30.09 5.26 111.17
6 -27.55 15.72 48.77 -27.93 15.72 43.59 -30.09 15.54 42.18
7 -36.49 -27.55 -136.84 -36.49 -27.93 -141.96 -36.31 -30.09 -142.01
8 -36.49 -9.90 -25.95 -36.49 -27.93 -28.52 -36.31 -12.44 -14.73
9 -36.49 0.00 0.00 -36.49 -27.93 0.00 -36.31 -2.54 27.62
Table I-I-23 Gust Factor, Frame D (AOA=0º)

1 2.392 14.763 NaN 2.368 -74.352 NaN 2.379 7.479 5.844
2 2.392 6.112 30.607 2.368 3.026 5.384 2.379 2.856 2.909
3 2.392 3.191 6.404 2.368 2.351 3.046 2.379 2.333 2.468
4 3.191 2.734 4.930 2.351 2.734 3.355 2.333 2.572 2.694
5 3.191 3.662 3.258 2.351 3.662 2.490 2.333 3.087 2.479
6 3.191 2.595 3.728 2.351 2.595 4.101 2.333 2.507 2.961
7 2.409 3.191 3.139 2.409 2.351 2.787 2.462 2.333 2.413
8 2.409 3.314 3.314 2.409 2.351 3.993 2.462 2.648 3.132
9 2.409 NaN NaN 2.409 2.351 NaN 2.462 4.587 4.169
Table I-I-24 Background Factor, Frame D (AOA=0º)

1 -0.66 -9.66 NaN -0.64 -6.93 NaN -0.66 -22.16 -3.05
2 -0.66 -1.79 -6.02 -0.64 -0.99 -2.89 -0.66 -0.98 -1.48
3 -0.66 -0.71 -1.80 -0.64 -0.51 -0.97 -0.66 -0.54 -0.73
4 -0.71 -0.89 -3.70 -0.51 -0.89 -1.41 -0.54 -0.82 -0.95
5 -0.71 -1.77 -1.56 -0.51 -1.77 -0.81 -0.54 -1.33 -0.79
6 -0.71 -0.88 -2.28 -0.51 -0.88 -1.43 -0.54 -0.81 -0.93
7 -0.65 -0.71 -0.84 -0.65 -0.51 -0.94 -0.67 -0.54 -0.72
8 -0.65 -1.00 -1.00 -0.65 -0.51 -2.26 -0.67 -0.98 -1.37
9 -0.65 NaN NaN -0.65 -0.51 NaN -0.67 -4.43 -2.54
— 190 —
Table I-I-25 Mean response of Across A (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 34.45 0.13 0.00 34.91 -2.72 0.00 34.32 -5.48 -33.73
2 34.45 -6.53 16.60 34.91 -9.38 35.19 34.32 -12.14 19.26
3 34.45 -7.61 67.43 34.91 -10.46 104.59 34.32 -13.22 106.52
4 7.61 11.27 -80.65 10.46 11.27 -43.46 13.22 11.16 -40.71
5 7.61 -4.81 -117.22 10.46 -4.81 -80.06 13.22 -4.93 -76.45
6 7.61 -10.65 -64.36 10.46 -10.65 -27.16 13.22 -10.76 -22.73
7 19.24 7.61 44.84 19.24 10.46 82.00 19.36 13.22 87.27
8 19.24 3.55 9.31 19.24 10.46 27.89 19.36 9.16 15.34
9 19.24 0.00 0.00 19.24 10.46 0.00 19.36 5.61 -30.37
Table I-I-26 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across A (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 107.82 46.11 0.00 106.90 -36.45 0.00 105.40 -47.20 -209.81
2 107.82 -33.71 227.89 106.90 -31.66 213.67 105.40 -41.85 86.09
3 107.82 -26.65 389.39 106.90 -30.33 360.82 105.40 -37.98 326.08
4 26.65 46.25 -417.20 30.33 46.25 -174.45 37.98 44.86 -150.25
5 26.65 -25.93 -465.57 30.33 -25.93 -272.35 37.98 -23.75 -258.30
6 26.65 -38.25 -283.74 30.33 -38.25 -140.29 37.98 -37.59 -96.84
7 57.24 26.65 182.78 57.24 30.33 306.37 58.03 37.98 271.45
8 57.24 16.80 44.02 57.24 30.33 137.35 58.03 30.85 61.69
9 57.24 0.00 0.00 57.24 30.33 0.00 58.03 25.82 -146.48
Table I-I-27 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across A (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 73.38 45.98 0.00 71.99 -33.72 0.00 71.08 -41.72 -176.08
2 73.38 -27.19 -234.41 71.99 -22.27 178.48 71.08 -29.71 66.83
3 73.38 -19.04 321.96 71.99 -19.86 256.24 71.08 -24.77 219.56
4 19.04 34.97 -336.54 19.86 34.97 -130.99 24.77 33.70 -109.54
5 19.04 -21.12 -348.36 19.86 -21.12 -192.29 24.77 -18.82 -181.85
6 19.04 -27.59 -219.38 19.86 -27.59 -113.13 24.77 -26.83 -74.11
7 38.00 19.04 137.94 38.00 19.86 224.37 38.67 24.77 184.18
8 38.00 13.25 34.72 38.00 19.86 109.45 38.67 21.69 46.35
9 38.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 19.86 0.00 38.67 20.21 -116.11
— 191 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame A (AOA=90º)
1 -142.66 -17.73 0.00 -148.45 2.64 0.00 -144.77 14.45 104.91
2 -142.66 13.33 33.89 -148.45 33.70 -98.69 -144.77 45.51 -70.12
3 -142.66 27.00 -155.64 -148.45 47.38 -420.71 -144.77 59.18 -468.68
4 -27.00 -50.72 468.14 -47.38 -50.72 202.90 -59.18 -52.91 171.29
5 -27.00 21.74 625.78 -47.38 21.74 360.71 -59.18 19.56 345.25
6 -27.00 51.07 378.60 -47.38 51.07 113.31 -59.18 48.89 114.18
7 -96.82 -27.00 -164.90 -96.82 -47.38 -429.96 -94.64 -59.18 -412.89
8 -96.82 -13.80 -36.15 -96.82 -47.38 -168.73 -94.64 -45.98 -75.20
9 -96.82 0.00 0.00 -96.82 -47.38 0.00 -94.64 -32.18 169.92
Table I-I-29 Gust Factor, Frame A (AOA=90º)

1 3.13 355.78 NaN 3.06 13.38 NaN 3.07 8.61 6.22
2 3.13 5.16 13.73 3.06 3.37 6.07 3.07 3.45 4.47
3 3.13 3.50 5.77 3.06 2.90 3.45 3.07 2.87 3.06
4 3.50 -0.25 5.17 2.90 4.10 4.01 2.87 4.02 3.69
5 3.50 5.39 3.97 2.90 5.39 3.40 2.87 4.82 3.38
6 3.50 3.59 4.41 2.90 3.59 5.17 2.87 3.49 4.26
7 2.97 3.50 4.08 2.97 2.90 3.74 3.00 2.87 3.11
8 2.97 4.73 4.73 2.97 2.90 4.92 3.00 3.37 4.02
9 2.97 NaN NaN 2.97 2.90 NaN 3.00 4.60 4.82
Table I-I-30 Background Factor, Frame A (AOA=90º)

1 0.51 2.59 NaN 0.49 12.75 NaN 0.49 2.89 1.68
2 0.51 2.04 6.92 0.49 0.66 1.81 0.49 0.65 0.95
3 0.51 0.71 2.07 0.49 0.42 0.61 0.49 0.42 0.47
4 0.71 0.69 0.72 0.42 0.69 0.65 0.42 0.64 0.64
5 0.71 0.97 0.56 0.42 0.97 0.53 0.42 0.96 0.53
6 0.71 0.54 0.58 0.42 0.54 1.00 0.42 0.55 0.65
7 0.39 0.71 0.84 0.39 0.42 0.52 0.41 0.42 0.45
8 0.39 0.96 0.96 0.39 0.42 0.65 0.41 0.47 0.62
9 0.39 NaN NaN 0.39 0.42 NaN 0.41 0.63 0.68
— 192 —
Table I-I-31 Mean response of Across B (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 55.41 -34.52 0.00 52.75 -28.49 0.00 50.07 -34.78 -153.24
2 55.41 -24.96 199.31 52.75 -18.93 160.11 50.07 -25.21 47.72
3 55.41 -15.29 313.79 52.75 -9.26 235.37 50.07 -15.55 163.87
4 15.29 22.18 50.90 9.26 22.18 -27.46 15.55 16.87 -59.13
5 15.29 -1.11 -35.46 9.26 -1.11 -113.88 15.55 -6.42 -105.63
6 15.29 -8.19 -6.89 9.26 -8.19 -85.25 15.55 -13.51 -37.15
7 18.63 15.29 89.51 18.63 9.26 11.09 23.94 15.55 99.08
8 18.63 7.00 18.35 18.63 9.26 -20.85 23.94 7.26 26.27
9 18.63 0.00 0.00 18.63 9.26 0.00 23.94 0.26 6.27
Table I-I-32 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across B (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 145.70 -116.17 0.00 137.75 -93.99 0.00 133.45 -112.78 -482.48
2 145.70 -77.32 640.61 137.75 -55.50 497.33 133.45 -73.46 149.12
3 145.70 -41.23 937.30 137.75 -30.36 657.25 133.45 -41.78 453.35
4 41.23 73.10 442.19 30.36 73.10 -160.56 41.78 60.10 -208.03
5 41.23 -23.47 -384.52 30.36 -23.47 -358.47 41.78 -31.33 -334.55
6 41.23 -35.49 -234.42 30.36 -35.49 -268.67 41.78 -45.61 -126.04
7 54.95 41.23 242.87 54.95 30.36 -229.19 63.87 41.78 296.53
8 54.95 19.50 51.08 54.95 30.36 -156.51 63.87 28.39 92.05
9 54.95 0.00 0.00 54.95 30.36 0.00 63.87 21.25 137.04
Table I-I-33 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across B (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 90.30 -81.65 0.00 85.01 -65.50 0.00 83.38 -78.00 -329.25
2 90.30 -52.36 441.30 85.01 -36.58 337.21 83.38 -48.24 101.40
3 90.30 -25.93 623.51 85.01 -21.10 421.88 83.38 -26.23 289.48
4 25.93 50.92 391.29 21.10 50.92 -133.09 26.23 43.23 -148.91
5 25.93 -22.36 -349.06 21.10 -22.36 -244.59 26.23 -24.91 -228.92
6 25.93 -27.30 -227.53 21.10 -27.30 -183.42 26.23 -32.10 -88.89
7 36.32 25.93 153.35 36.32 21.10 -240.28 39.92 26.23 197.44
8 36.32 12.49 32.73 36.32 21.10 -135.66 39.92 21.13 65.78
9 36.32 0.00 0.00 36.32 21.10 0.00 39.92 -21.02 130.77
— 193 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame B (AOA=90º)
1 -190.11 121.80 0.00 -180.95 110.00 0.00 -169.23 135.87 615.10
2 -190.11 82.84 -689.63 -180.95 71.03 -612.79 -169.23 96.91 -165.87
3 -190.11 28.82 -1054.77 -180.95 17.02 -900.99 -169.23 42.89 -622.48
4 -28.82 -92.00 -84.92 -17.02 -92.00 68.67 -42.89 -71.20 191.08
5 -28.82 1.45 302.44 -17.02 1.45 456.22 -42.89 22.25 422.24
6 -28.82 31.71 204.95 -17.02 31.71 358.51 -42.89 52.51 168.38
7 -66.91 -28.82 -161.25 -66.91 -17.02 -7.47 -87.71 -42.89 -353.91
8 -66.91 -12.68 -33.23 -66.91 -17.02 43.61 -87.71 -26.75 -134.53
9 -66.91 0.00 0.00 -66.91 -17.02 0.00 -87.71 -14.07 -9.91
Table I-I-35 Gust Factor, Frame B (AOA=90º)

1 2.63 3.37 NaN 2.61 3.30 NaN 2.67 3.24 3.15
2 2.63 3.10 3.21 2.61 2.93 3.11 2.67 2.91 3.12
3 2.63 2.70 2.99 2.61 3.28 2.79 2.67 2.69 2.77
4 2.70 3.30 8.69 3.28 3.30 5.85 2.69 3.56 3.52
5 2.70 21.17 10.84 3.28 21.17 3.15 2.69 4.88 3.17
6 2.70 4.33 34.01 3.28 4.33 3.15 2.69 3.38 3.39
7 2.95 2.70 2.71 2.95 3.28 -20.66 2.67 2.69 2.99
8 2.95 2.78 2.78 2.95 3.28 7.51 2.67 3.91 3.50
9 2.95 NaN NaN 2.95 3.28 NaN 2.67 82.34 21.87
Table I-I-36 Background Factor, Frame B (AOA=90º)

1 0.48 0.67 NaN 0.47 0.60 NaN 0.49 0.57 0.54
2 0.48 0.63 0.64 0.47 0.51 0.55 0.49 0.50 0.61
3 0.48 0.90 0.59 0.47 1.24 0.47 0.49 0.61 0.47
4 0.90 0.55 4.61 1.24 0.55 1.94 0.61 0.61 0.78
5 0.90 15.42 1.15 1.24 15.42 0.54 0.61 1.12 0.54
6 0.90 0.86 1.11 1.24 0.86 0.51 0.61 0.61 0.53
7 0.54 0.90 0.95 0.54 1.24 -32.17 0.46 0.61 0.56
8 0.54 0.98 0.98 0.54 1.24 3.11 0.46 0.79 0.49
9 0.54 NaN NaN 0.54 1.24 NaN 0.46 1.49 13.20
— 194 —
Table I-I-37 Mean response of Across C (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 60.48 -33.26 0.00 57.96 -28.96 0.00 55.34 -35.95 -158.40
2 60.48 -24.58 193.47 57.96 -20.28 165.50 55.34 -27.27 52.53
3 60.48 -14.57 307.88 57.96 -10.26 251.93 55.34 -17.26 184.44
4 14.57 23.50 15.68 10.26 23.50 -40.21 17.26 18.39 -69.41
5 14.57 -2.70 -74.48 10.26 -2.70 -130.44 17.26 -7.80 -121.26
6 14.57 -10.75 -31.22 10.26 -10.75 -87.10 17.26 -15.86 -39.62
7 21.11 14.57 85.38 21.11 10.26 29.43 26.21 17.26 115.26
8 21.11 6.62 17.34 21.11 10.26 -10.62 26.21 9.31 29.76
9 21.11 0.00 0.00 21.11 10.26 0.00 26.21 2.69 -5.06
Table I-I-38 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across C (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 152.82 -109.82 0.00 144.07 -91.11 0.00 137.94 -110.00 -481.62
2 152.82 -76.62 622.43 144.07 -57.36 497.55 137.94 -76.11 150.41
3 152.82 -34.83 931.46 144.07 -27.56 683.69 137.94 -39.55 468.13
4 34.83 70.88 317.60 27.56 70.88 -152.83 39.55 56.82 -201.75
5 34.83 -20.54 -375.40 27.56 -20.54 -357.03 39.55 -30.81 -332.33
6 34.83 -35.25 -226.90 27.56 -35.25 -260.24 39.55 -45.85 -119.31
7 53.97 34.83 205.79 53.97 27.56 195.15 62.69 39.55 290.10
8 53.97 16.27 42.63 53.97 27.56 -121.89 62.69 28.09 92.12
9 53.97 0.00 0.00 53.97 27.56 0.00 62.69 21.14 99.64
Table I-I-39 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across C (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 92.34 -76.56 0.00 86.11 -62.15 0.00 82.61 -74.05 -323.22
2 92.34 -52.04 428.96 86.11 -37.08 332.05 82.61 -48.83 97.88
3 92.34 -20.26 623.58 86.11 -17.29 431.76 82.61 -22.29 283.68
4 20.26 47.38 301.92 17.29 47.38 -112.62 22.29 38.42 -132.33
5 20.26 -17.85 -300.92 17.29 -17.85 -226.59 22.29 -23.01 -211.07
6 20.26 -24.50 -195.69 17.29 -24.50 -173.14 22.29 -29.99 -79.69
7 32.87 20.26 120.41 32.87 17.29 -199.66 36.47 22.29 174.84
8 32.87 9.65 25.29 32.87 17.29 -111.27 36.47 18.78 62.36
9 32.87 0.00 0.00 32.87 17.29 0.00 36.47 18.44 104.69
— 195 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame C (AOA=90º)
1 -208.15 117.87 0.00 -198.96 112.71 0.00 -187.26 141.72 651.16
2 -208.15 83.84 -677.00 -198.96 78.68 -643.39 -187.26 107.69 -180.68
3 -208.15 28.06 -1047.93 -198.96 22.90 -980.59 -187.26 51.91 -706.60
4 -28.06 -98.84 31.45 -22.90 -98.84 98.56 -51.91 -78.07 216.69
5 -28.06 2.28 454.31 -22.90 2.28 521.64 -51.91 23.06 483.56
6 -28.06 40.25 328.38 -22.90 40.25 395.47 -51.91 61.03 201.48
7 -87.16 -28.06 -145.70 -87.16 -22.90 -78.36 -107.94 -51.91 -428.48
8 -87.16 -11.44 -29.97 -87.16 -22.90 3.64 -107.94 -35.29 -157.89
9 -87.16 0.00 0.00 -87.16 -22.90 0.00 -107.94 -23.85 26.99
Table I-I-41 Gust Factor, Frame C (AOA=90º

1 2.53 3.30 NaN 2.49 3.15 NaN 2.49 3.06 3.04
2 2.53 3.12 3.22 2.49 2.83 3.01 2.49 2.79 2.86
3 2.53 2.39 3.03 2.49 2.69 2.71 2.49 2.29 2.54
4 2.39 3.02 20.26 2.69 3.02 3.80 2.29 3.09 2.91
5 2.39 7.62 5.04 2.69 7.62 2.74 2.29 3.95 2.74
6 2.39 3.28 7.27 2.69 3.28 2.99 2.29 2.89 3.01
7 2.56 2.39 2.41 2.56 2.69 6.63 2.39 2.29 2.52
8 2.56 2.46 2.46 2.56 2.69 11.47 2.39 3.02 3.10
9 2.56 NaN NaN 2.56 2.69 NaN 2.39 7.85 -19.70
Table I-I-42 Background Factor, Frame C (AOA=90º)

1 0.44 0.65 NaN 0.43 0.55 NaN 0.44 0.52 0.50
2 0.44 0.62 0.63 0.43 0.47 0.52 0.44 0.45 0.54
3 0.44 0.72 0.60 0.43 0.76 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.40
4 0.72 0.48 -9.60 0.76 0.48 1.14 0.43 0.49 0.61
5 0.72 7.81 0.66 0.76 7.81 0.43 0.43 1.00 0.44
6 0.72 0.61 0.60 0.76 0.61 0.44 0.43 0.49 0.40
7 0.38 0.72 0.83 0.38 0.76 -2.55 0.34 0.43 0.41
8 0.38 0.84 0.84 0.38 0.76 30.60 0.34 0.53 0.40
9 0.38 NaN NaN 0.38 0.76 NaN 0.34 0.77 -3.88
— 196 —
Table I-I-43 Mean response of Across D (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 25.05 -1.45 0.00 25.28 -1.78 0.00 24.58 -3.45 -26.04
2 25.05 -7.18 24.44 25.28 -7.50 26.59 24.58 -9.17 11.30
3 25.05 -8.56 75.77 25.28 -8.89 80.05 24.58 -10.56 75.55
4 8.56 6.16 -25.15 8.89 6.16 -20.83 10.56 5.71 -22.01
5 8.56 -1.94 -61.10 8.89 -1.94 -56.82 10.56 -2.39 -54.64
6 8.56 -7.24 -31.33 8.89 -7.24 -27.01 10.56 -7.69 -21.50
7 14.83 8.56 50.05 14.83 8.89 54.33 15.28 10.56 63.20
8 14.83 3.94 10.33 14.83 8.89 12.48 15.28 5.94 10.57
9 14.83 0.00 0.00 14.83 8.89 0.00 15.28 2.00 -12.67
Table I-I-44 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across D (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 81.35 -34.08 0.00 80.58 -29.68 0.00 80.19 -37.85 -175.37
2 81.35 -31.49 205.04 80.58 -27.73 174.92 80.19 -35.78 69.86
3 81.35 -28.19 360.44 80.58 -27.10 302.93 80.19 -33.97 274.13
4 28.19 40.50 -309.49 27.10 40.50 -147.42 33.97 39.21 -132.99
5 28.19 -20.86 -371.49 27.10 -20.86 -231.75 33.97 -20.33 -221.14
6 28.19 -31.17 -225.63 27.10 -31.17 -128.50 33.97 -31.39 -88.36
7 48.40 28.19 186.95 48.40 27.10 238.38 48.89 33.97 228.14
8 48.40 17.15 44.93 48.40 27.10 99.85 48.89 25.71 50.90
9 48.40 0.00 0.00 48.40 27.10 0.00 48.89 20.89 -114.06
Table I-I-45 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across D (lb, lb-ft) (AOA=90º)
1 56.30 -32.62 0.00 55.30 -27.90 0.00 55.60 -34.40 -149.33
2 56.30 -24.31 180.60 55.30 -20.23 148.33 55.60 -26.60 58.55
3 56.30 -19.63 284.67 55.30 -18.21 222.88 55.60 -23.41 198.58
4 19.63 34.34 -284.35 18.21 34.34 -126.59 23.41 33.51 -110.98
5 19.63 -18.92 -310.39 18.21 -18.92 -174.93 23.41 -17.94 -166.50
6 19.63 -23.92 -194.30 18.21 -23.92 -101.50 23.41 -23.70 -66.86
7 33.56 19.63 136.90 33.56 18.21 184.04 33.60 23.41 164.94
8 33.56 13.21 34.60 33.56 18.21 87.37 33.60 19.78 40.33
9 33.56 0.00 0.00 33.56 18.21 0.00 33.60 18.89 -101.39
— 197 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Frame D (AOA=90º)
1 -112.03 -20.02 0.00 -115.97 2.39 0.00 -116.55 13.72 63.22
2 -112.03 2.09 72.20 -115.97 24.50 -73.60 -116.55 35.83 -83.65
3 -112.03 27.35 -18.25 -115.97 49.75 -309.80 -116.55 61.08 -393.29
4 -27.35 -45.37 516.46 -49.75 -45.37 224.77 -61.08 -49.95 175.70
5 -27.35 26.52 627.55 -49.75 26.52 336.01 -61.08 21.94 321.18
6 -27.35 51.45 357.07 -49.75 51.45 65.35 -61.08 46.87 84.92
7 -89.64 -27.35 -166.83 -89.64 -49.75 -458.38 -85.06 -61.08 -404.51
8 -89.64 -13.79 -36.14 -89.64 -49.75 -181.94 -85.06 -47.53 -54.72
9 -89.64 0.00 0.00 -89.64 -49.75 0.00 -85.06 -33.74 200.54
Table I-I-47 Gust Factor, Frame D (AOA=90º)

1 3.25 23.46 NaN 3.19 16.70 NaN 3.26 10.98 6.73
2 3.25 4.39 8.39 3.19 3.70 6.58 3.26 3.90 6.18
3 3.25 3.29 4.76 3.19 3.05 3.78 3.26 3.22 3.63
4 3.29 6.58 12.31 3.05 6.58 7.08 3.22 6.87 6.04
5 3.29 10.76 6.08 3.05 10.76 4.08 3.22 8.52 4.05
6 3.29 4.30 7.20 3.05 4.30 4.76 3.22 4.08 4.11
7 3.26 3.29 3.74 3.26 3.05 4.39 3.20 3.22 3.61
8 3.26 4.35 4.35 3.26 3.05 8.00 3.20 4.33 4.81
9 3.26 NaN NaN 3.26 3.05 NaN 3.20 10.47 9.01
Table I-I-48 Background Factor, Frame D (AOA=90º)

1 0.50 -1.63 NaN 0.48 11.67 NaN 0.48 2.51 2.36
2 0.50 11.64 -2.50 0.48 0.83 2.02 0.48 0.74 0.70
3 0.50 0.72 15.60 0.48 0.37 0.72 0.48 0.38 0.50
4 0.72 0.76 0.55 0.37 0.76 0.56 0.38 0.67 0.63
5 0.72 0.71 0.49 0.37 0.71 0.52 0.38 0.82 0.52
6 0.72 0.47 0.54 0.37 0.47 1.55 0.38 0.51 0.79
7 0.37 0.72 0.82 0.37 0.37 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.41
8 0.37 0.96 0.96 0.37 0.37 0.48 0.40 0.42 0.74
9 0.37 NaN NaN 0.37 0.37 NaN 0.40 0.56 0.51
— 198 —
APPENDIX I-PART II: TAMURA WIND MODEL
Table I-II-1 Mean response of Across A (KN, KN-m)

1 18.27 0.06 0.00 18.27 9.96 0.00 18.28 12.38 101.20
2 18.27 -12.76 156.52 18.27 -2.85 -91.17 18.28 -0.43 -50.46
3 18.27 -27.51 653.23 18.27 -17.60 157.85 18.28 -15.18 138.08
4 27.51 6.74 483.80 17.60 6.74 -11.58 15.18 6.75 -31.55
5 27.51 -0.08 433.92 17.60 -0.08 -61.47 15.18 -0.07 -81.63
6 27.51 -10.43 485.49 17.60 -10.43 -9.91 15.18 -10.42 -30.26
7 18.30 27.51 654.82 18.30 17.60 159.42 18.28 15.18 138.87
8 18.30 12.82 156.75 18.30 2.91 -90.95 18.28 0.49 -51.01
9 18.30 0.00 0.00 18.30 -9.91 0.00 18.28 -12.33 100.43
Table I-II-2 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across A (KN, KN-m)

1 57.70 -51.41 0.00 57.70 46.30 0.00 47.92 51.94 618.14
2 57.70 -61.01 1378.45 57.70 -17.59 -638.07 47.92 15.31 -150.36
3 57.70 -76.28 3051.68 57.70 -38.67 853.04 47.92 -32.73 440.79
4 76.28 36.41 2593.51 38.67 36.41 -378.65 32.73 22.17 -207.50
5 76.28 -27.98 2292.78 38.67 -27.99 -238.40 32.73 -11.09 -252.63
6 76.28 -43.48 2116.09 38.67 -43.48 -335.89 32.73 -30.32 -192.10
7 57.39 76.29 2165.05 57.39 38.67 881.23 50.97 32.73 437.56
8 57.39 46.93 646.56 57.39 17.51 -679.45 50.97 14.77 -162.40
9 57.39 0.00 0.00 57.39 -46.33 0.00 50.97 -52.05 661.16
Table I-II-3 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across A (KN, KN-m)

1 39.43 -51.46 0.00 39.43 36.34 0.00 29.63 39.56 516.94
2 39.43 -48.25 1221.92 39.43 14.97 -546.90 29.63 15.74 -99.90
3 39.43 -48.77 2398.45 39.43 -21.07 695.19 29.63 -17.55 302.71
4 48.77 29.68 2109.70 21.07 29.68 -367.07 17.55 15.41 -175.95
5 48.77 -27.90 1858.86 21.07 -27.90 -176.93 17.55 -11.02 -170.99
6 48.77 -33.05 1630.60 21.07 -33.05 336.76 17.55 -19.90 -161.84
7 39.09 48.77 1510.22 39.09 21.07 721.81 32.69 17.55 298.69
8 39.09 34.11 489.81 39.09 14.60 -588.50 32.69 -14.42 -111.39
9 39.09 0.00 0.00 39.09 -36.43 0.00 32.69 -39.72 560.73
— 199 —
Table I-II-4 Dynamic Responses under Absolute Maximum Fluctuating Pressure
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Across Frame A (KN, KN-m)
1 43.55 0.28 0.00 43.55 38.73 0.00 44.29 47.73 393.91
2 43.55 -49.07 628.07 43.55 -10.62 -333.13 44.29 -1.61 -164.38
3 43.55 -85.86 2303.06 43.55 -47.41 380.68 44.29 -38.41 324.27
4 85.86 13.43 1923.01 47.41 13.43 0.59 38.41 14.17 -65.14
5 85.86 -1.26 1828.55 47.41 -1.26 -93.90 38.41 -0.51 -168.95
6 85.86 -24.98 1958.11 47.41 -24.98 35.63 38.41 -24.23 -48.74
7 48.52 85.86 2383.99 48.52 47.41 461.48 47.78 38.41 367.78
8 48.52 51.22 650.76 48.52 12.77 -310.49 47.78 3.77 -179.03
9 48.52 0.00 0.00 48.52 -38.45 0.00 47.78 -47.46 356.62
Table I-II-5 Gust Factor, Across Frame A

1 3.16 -915.85 NaN 3.16 4.65 NaN 2.62 4.19 6.11
2 3.16 4.78 8.81 3.16 6.17 7.00 2.62 -35.48 2.98
3 3.16 2.77 4.67 3.16 2.20 5.40 2.62 2.16 3.19
4 2.77 5.41 5.36 2.20 5.40 32.71 2.16 3.28 6.58
5 2.77 331.10 5.28 2.20 333.65 3.88 2.16 162.05 3.09
6 2.77 4.17 4.36 2.20 4.17 33.90 2.16 2.91 6.35
7 3.14 2.77 3.31 3.14 2.20 5.53 2.79 2.16 3.15
8 3.14 3.66 4.12 3.14 6.02 7.47 2.79 30.18 3.18
9 3.14 NaN NaN 3.14 4.68 NaN 2.79 4.22 6.58
Table I-II-6 Background Factor, Across Frame A

1 0.91 -185.00 NaN 0.91 0.94 NaN 0.67 0.83 1.31
2 0.91 0.98 1.95 0.91 -1.41 1.64 0.67 -9.75 0.61
3 0.91 0.57 1.04 0.91 0.44 1.83 0.67 0.46 0.93
4 0.57 2.21 1.10 0.44 2.21 -618.03 0.46 1.09 2.70
5 0.57 22.09 1.02 0.44 22.13 1.88 0.46 21.39 1.01
6 0.57 1.32 0.83 0.44 1.32 9.45 0.46 0.82 3.32
7 0.81 0.57 0.63 0.81 0.44 1.56 0.68 0.46 0.81
8 0.81 0.67 0.75 0.81 1.14 1.90 0.68 -3.83 0.62
9 0.81 NaN NaN 0.81 0.95 NaN 0.68 0.84 1.57
— 200 —
Table I-II-7 Mean response of Across B (KN, KN-m)
1 8.21 0.15 0.00 8.21 6.36 0.00 8.29 8.05 72.73
2 8.21 -7.71 88.64 8.21 -1.49 -66.64 8.29 0.20 -36.28
3 8.21 -16.52 392.33 8.21 -10.31 81.78 8.29 -8.62 69.77
4 16.52 3.29 315.01 10.31 3.29 4.45 8.62 3.38 -8.61
5 16.52 -0.10 290.73 10.31 -0.10 -19.84 8.62 -0.02 -33.96
6 16.52 -5.17 317.70 10.31 -5.17 7.13 8.62 -5.08 -8.06
7 8.53 16.52 398.73 8.53 10.31 88.15 8.45 8.62 71.91
8 8.53 7.85 93.15 8.53 1.64 -62.14 8.45 -0.06 -36.02
9 8.53 0.00 0.00 8.53 -6.21 0.00 8.45 -7.91 68.49
Table I-II-8 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across B (KN, KN-m)

1 42.20 -57.68 0.00 42.20 36.84 0.00 28.91 40.80 597.55
2 42.20 -57.52 1426.10 42.20 -17.24 -599.12 28.91 15.97 -127.95
3 42.20 -61.57 2867.91 42.20 -29.95 815.59 28.91 -25.39 326.38
4 61.58 33.55 2450.39 29.95 33.56 388.16 25.39 16.37 -147.79
5 61.58 -30.88 2094.09 29.95 -30.88 -134.97 25.39 -11.56 -144.06
6 61.58 -35.94 1797.93 29.95 -35.94 387.11 25.39 -20.45 -144.23
7 40.93 61.58 1627.14 40.93 29.95 808.83 28.01 25.39 335.49
8 40.93 34.48 447.27 40.93 16.99 -635.10 28.01 14.48 -133.97
9 40.93 0.00 0.00 40.93 -41.68 0.00 28.01 -45.61 631.58
Table I-II-9 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across B (KN, KN-m)

1 33.99 -57.83 0.00 33.99 30.48 0.00 20.62 32.74 524.82
2 33.99 -49.81 1337.46 33.99 -15.74 -532.48 20.62 15.78 -91.67
3 33.99 -45.05 2475.58 33.99 -19.64 733.81 20.62 -16.77 326.38
4 45.05 30.26 2135.37 19.64 30.26 383.71 16.77 12.99 -147.79
5 45.05 -30.77 1803.36 19.64 -30.77 123.98 16.77 -11.54 -144.06
6 45.05 -30.77 1480.23 19.64 -30.77 379.98 16.77 -15.37 -144.23
7 32.40 45.06 1228.41 32.40 19.64 720.68 19.56 16.77 335.49
8 32.40 26.63 354.12 32.40 15.35 -572.96 19.56 -15.08 -133.97
9 32.40 0.00 0.00 32.40 -35.47 0.00 19.56 -37.70 631.58
— 201 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Across Frame B (KN, KN-m)
1 29.38 -7.39 0.00 29.38 19.43 0.00 27.36 25.33 194.99
2 29.38 -32.58 509.49 29.38 -5.76 -160.98 27.36 0.13 -113.37
3 29.38 -63.20 1679.86 29.38 -36.38 338.92 27.36 -30.48 239.16
4 63.20 12.49 1402.48 36.38 12.49 61.53 30.48 10.46 -12.91
5 63.20 2.46 1296.58 36.38 2.46 -44.39 30.48 0.43 -93.52
6 63.20 -12.61 1336.16 36.38 -12.61 -4.84 30.48 -14.64 -28.65
7 24.45 63.20 1552.72 24.44 36.38 211.70 26.47 30.48 213.21
8 24.45 31.53 397.37 24.44 4.71 -273.14 26.47 -1.19 -124.25
9 24.45 0.00 0.00 24.44 -26.82 0.00 26.47 -32.72 296.27
Table I-II-11 Gust Factor, Across Frame B

1 5.14 -387.17 NaN 5.14 5.79 NaN 3.49 5.07 8.22
2 5.14 7.46 16.09 5.14 11.53 8.99 3.49 79.99 3.53
3 5.14 3.73 7.31 5.14 2.90 9.97 3.49 2.95 4.68
4 3.73 10.19 7.78 2.90 10.18 87.19 2.95 4.84 17.17
5 3.73 295.62 7.20 2.90 296.77 6.80 2.95 601.28 4.24
6 3.73 6.95 5.66 2.90 6.95 54.32 2.95 4.02 17.90
7 4.80 3.73 4.08 4.80 2.90 9.18 3.32 2.95 4.67
8 4.80 4.39 4.80 4.80 10.36 10.22 3.32 272.28 3.72
9 4.80 NaN NaN 4.80 6.71 NaN 3.32 5.77 9.22
Table I-II-12 Background Factor, Across Frame B

1 1.16 7.83 NaN 1.16 1.57 NaN 0.75 1.29 2.69
2 1.16 1.53 2.63 1.16 2.73 3.31 0.75 120.59 0.81
3 1.16 0.71 1.47 1.16 0.54 2.17 0.75 0.55 1.07
4 0.71 2.42 1.52 0.54 2.42 6.24 0.55 1.24 10.78
5 0.71 -12.53 1.39 0.54 -12.52 -2.79 0.55 -26.70 1.18
6 0.71 2.44 1.11 0.54 2.44 -78.52 0.55 1.05 4.75
7 1.33 0.71 0.79 1.33 0.54 3.40 0.74 0.55 1.24
8 1.33 0.84 0.89 1.33 3.26 2.10 0.74 12.70 0.79
9 1.33 NaN NaN 1.33 1.32 NaN 0.74 1.15 1.90
— 202 —
Table I-II-13 Mean response of Across C (KN, KN-m)
1 4.45 0.08 0.00 4.45 4.33 0.00 4.48 5.48 48.36
2 4.45 -5.27 62.78 4.45 -1.02 -43.47 4.48 0.12 -23.67
3 4.45 -10.56 260.40 4.45 -6.31 47.91 4.48 -5.17 39.14
4 10.56 1.68 219.28 6.31 1.68 6.78 5.17 1.71 -2.36
5 10.56 -0.02 206.75 6.31 -0.02 -5.75 5.17 0.01 -15.27
6 10.56 -2.66 220.22 6.31 -2.66 7.72 5.17 -2.63 -2.18
7 4.50 10.56 262.57 4.50 6.31 50.06 4.47 5.17 39.78
8 4.50 5.26 64.37 4.50 1.01 -41.89 4.47 -0.14 -23.60
9 4.50 0.00 0.00 4.50 -4.25 0.00 4.47 -5.39 46.84
Table I-II-14 Absolute Maximum Total response of Across C (KN, KN-m)

1 29.75 48.88 0.00 29.75 37.01 0.00 14.85 40.67 599.56
2 29.75 -48.58 1144.40 29.75 -14.08 -606.96 14.85 15.53 -103.40
3 29.75 -54.08 2419.78 29.75 -21.18 689.11 14.85 -17.38 252.97
4 54.08 26.12 2094.46 21.18 26.12 339.28 17.38 10.01 107.97
5 54.08 -26.23 1834.22 21.18 -26.23 -66.37 17.38 -8.24 -70.11
6 54.08 -29.49 1618.07 21.18 -29.50 369.10 17.38 -12.35 117.44
7 31.36 54.08 1463.31 31.36 21.18 743.70 15.37 17.38 268.18
8 31.36 31.75 402.13 31.36 15.46 -551.29 15.37 -14.16 -109.53
9 31.36 0.00 0.00 31.36 -36.16 0.00 15.37 -40.16 550.10
Table I-II-15 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Across C (KN, KN-m)

1 25.30 48.80 0.00 25.30 32.68 0.00 10.38 35.20 551.20
2 25.30 -43.31 1081.62 25.30 13.22 -563.49 10.38 15.41 -79.73
3 25.30 -43.51 2159.39 25.30 -14.86 641.20 10.38 -12.21 213.82
4 43.52 -25.32 1875.18 14.86 -25.32 332.50 12.21 8.30 110.32
5 43.52 -26.21 1627.47 14.86 -26.21 66.17 12.21 -8.25 -54.84
6 43.52 -26.83 1397.84 14.86 -26.83 361.38 12.21 -9.72 119.62
7 26.86 43.52 1200.74 26.86 14.86 693.64 10.90 12.21 228.40
8 26.86 26.49 337.77 26.86 14.45 -509.41 10.90 -14.03 -85.92
9 26.86 0.00 0.00 26.86 -31.91 0.00 10.90 -34.77 503.26
— 203 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Across Frame C (KN, KN-m)
1 16.66 -0.39 0.00 16.66 23.75 0.00 17.04 30.36 284.72
2 16.66 -27.53 351.09 16.66 -3.38 -252.55 17.04 3.22 -133.00
3 16.66 -59.69 1415.62 16.66 -35.55 208.35 17.04 -28.94 162.72
4 59.69 5.26 1272.46 35.55 5.26 65.17 28.94 5.64 14.82
5 59.69 -0.46 1235.64 35.55 -0.45 28.33 28.94 -0.08 -26.73
6 59.70 -10.48 1290.10 35.55 -10.48 82.77 28.94 -10.10 23.00
7 17.39 59.70 1453.70 17.39 35.55 246.35 17.01 28.94 181.86
8 17.39 29.23 363.74 17.39 5.08 -239.94 17.01 -1.53 -139.25
9 17.39 0.00 0.00 17.39 -24.15 0.00 17.01 -30.75 265.86
Table I-II-17 Gust Factor, Across Frame C

1 6.69 590.36 NaN 6.69 8.54 NaN 3.32 7.43 12.40
2 6.69 9.22 18.23 6.69 13.80 13.96 3.32 127.61 4.37
3 6.69 5.12 9.29 6.69 3.36 14.38 3.32 3.36 6.46
4 5.12 15.57 9.55 3.36 15.57 50.03 3.36 5.86 -45.77
5 5.12 1551.35 8.87 3.36 1577.13 11.54 3.36 -601.23 4.59
6 5.12 11.07 7.35 3.36 11.07 47.80 3.36 4.69 -53.93
7 6.96 5.12 5.57 6.96 3.36 14.86 3.44 3.36 6.74
8 6.96 6.04 6.25 6.96 15.35 13.16 3.44 104.86 4.64
9 6.96 NaN NaN 6.96 8.51 NaN 3.44 7.45 -6.69
Table I-II-18 Background Factor, Across Frame C

1 1.52 -124.47 NaN 1.52 1.38 NaN 0.61 1.16 1.94
2 1.52 1.57 3.08 1.52 -3.91 2.23 0.61 4.78 0.60
3 1.52 0.73 1.53 1.52 0.42 3.08 0.61 0.42 1.31
4 0.73 -4.81 1.47 0.42 -4.81 5.10 0.42 1.47 7.44
5 0.73 57.52 1.32 0.42 57.72 2.34 0.42 107.20 2.05
6 0.73 2.56 1.08 0.42 2.56 4.37 0.42 0.96 5.20
7 1.54 0.73 0.83 1.54 0.42 2.82 0.64 0.42 1.26
8 1.54 0.91 0.93 1.54 2.84 2.12 0.64 9.20 0.62
9 1.54 NaN NaN 1.54 1.32 NaN 0.64 1.13 1.89
— 204 —
Table I-II-19 Mean response of Along A (KN, KN-m)
1 23.31 -18.10 0.00 23.31 -9.29 0.00 16.42 -9.83 -194.48
2 23.31 -15.37 423.13 23.31 -6.56 202.99 16.42 -7.10 21.82
3 23.31 -9.96 740.59 23.31 -1.16 300.31 16.42 -1.69 132.45
4 9.96 13.01 505.39 1.16 13.01 65.10 1.69 6.12 -16.61
5 9.96 8.46 366.82 1.16 8.46 -73.47 1.69 1.57 -69.03
6 9.96 3.98 285.83 1.16 3.98 -154.47 1.69 -2.91 -63.88
7 -1.91 9.96 246.72 -1.91 1.16 -193.59 4.98 1.69 -16.86
8 -1.91 4.95 59.90 -1.91 -3.86 -160.26 4.98 -3.33 3.17
9 -1.91 0.00 0.00 -1.91 -8.81 0.00 4.98 -8.27 150.12
Table I-II-20 Absolute Maximum Total response of Along A (KN,KN-m)

1 68.17 -67.46 0.00 68.18 -42.78 0.00 48.55 -46.59 -781.91
2 68.17 -48.16 1458.53 68.18 -21.73 809.31 48.55 -25.04 133.02
3 68.17 -28.63 2291.07 68.18 11.17 961.66 48.55 -9.12 379.46
4 28.63 42.54 1651.18 -11.17 42.54 327.72 9.12 20.82 -121.80
5 28.63 34.92 1195.37 -11.17 34.92 -289.54 9.12 10.01 -260.17
6 28.63 27.65 836.85 -11.17 27.65 -557.60 9.12 -16.01 -225.30
7 -25.37 28.63 695.07 -25.37 -11.17 -865.33 24.72 9.12 -223.04
8 -25.37 14.25 164.81 -25.37 -17.43 -554.28 24.72 -14.72 61.17
9 -25.37 0.00 0.00 -25.37 -26.63 0.00 24.72 -24.34 517.47
Table I-II-21 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Along A (KN,KN-m)

1 44.87 -49.36 0.00 44.87 -33.49 0.00 32.14 -36.77 -587.43
2 44.87 -32.79 1035.39 44.87 -15.16 606.32 32.14 -17.94 111.20
3 44.87 -18.67 1550.48 44.87 12.33 661.35 32.14 9.46 247.01
4 18.67 29.53 1145.79 -12.33 29.53 262.61 -9.46 14.70 -105.19
5 18.67 26.45 828.54 -12.33 26.45 -216.07 -9.46 8.43 -191.13
6 18.67 23.67 551.01 -12.33 23.67 -403.14 -9.46 -13.10 -161.42
7 -23.46 18.67 448.35 -23.46 -12.33 -671.73 19.74 -9.46 -206.19
8 -23.46 9.30 104.92 -23.46 -13.57 -394.02 19.74 -11.40 58.00
9 -23.46 0.00 0.00 -23.46 -17.82 0.00 19.74 -16.06 367.35
— 205 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Along Frame A (KN, KN-m)
1 83.42 -83.26 0.00 83.42 -51.18 0.00 52.60 -55.42 -947.43
2 83.42 -57.73 1773.50 83.42 -25.65 971.44 52.60 -29.89 130.08
3 83.42 -26.74 2829.73 83.42 5.34 1225.62 52.60 1.10 490.33
4 26.74 56.25 1932.08 -5.34 56.25 327.94 -1.10 25.43 -22.03
5 26.75 41.05 1306.15 -5.34 41.05 -298.02 -1.10 10.23 -262.67
6 26.75 22.84 884.02 -5.34 22.84 -720.18 -1.10 -7.99 -299.50
7 -12.04 26.75 656.58 -12.04 -5.34 -947.64 18.79 -1.10 -141.64
8 -12.04 13.03 150.69 -12.04 -19.05 -651.42 18.79 -14.81 48.53
9 -12.04 0.00 0.00 -12.04 -32.08 0.00 18.79 -27.84 593.89
Table I-II-23 Gust Factor, Along Frame A

1 2.93 3.73 NaN 2.93 4.60 NaN 2.96 4.74 4.02
2 2.93 3.13 3.45 2.93 3.31 3.99 2.96 3.53 6.10
3 2.93 2.87 3.09 2.93 -9.67 3.20 2.96 5.40 2.87
4 2.87 3.27 3.27 -9.67 3.27 5.03 5.40 3.40 7.33
5 2.87 4.13 3.26 -9.67 4.13 3.94 5.40 6.36 3.77
6 2.87 6.94 2.93 -9.67 6.94 3.61 5.40 5.50 3.53
7 13.26 2.87 2.82 13.25 -9.67 4.47 4.97 -4.60 13.23
8 13.26 2.88 2.75 13.25 4.52 3.46 4.97 4.43 19.28
9 13.26 NaN NaN 13.25 3.02 NaN 4.97 2.94 3.45
Table I-II-24 Background Factor, Along Frame A

1 0.54 0.59 NaN 0.54 0.65 NaN 0.61 0.66 0.62
2 0.54 0.57 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.62 0.61 0.60 0.85
3 0.54 0.70 0.55 0.54 2.31 0.54 0.61 8.63 0.50
4 0.70 0.52 0.59 2.31 0.52 0.80 8.63 0.58 4.77
5 0.70 0.64 0.63 2.31 0.64 0.73 8.64 0.82 0.73
6 0.70 1.04 0.62 2.31 1.04 0.56 8.64 1.64 0.54
7 1.95 0.70 0.68 1.95 2.31 0.71 1.05 8.64 1.46
8 1.95 0.71 0.70 1.95 0.71 0.60 1.05 0.77 1.20
9 1.95 NaN NaN 1.95 0.56 NaN 1.05 0.58 0.62
— 206 —
Table I-II-25 Mean response of Along B (KN, KN-m)
1 27.27 -26.60 0.00 27.27 -15.81 0.00 17.68 -16.97 -288.29
2 27.27 -18.81 568.55 27.27 -8.02 298.78 17.68 -9.18 39.51
3 27.27 -9.83 921.21 27.27 0.96 381.68 17.68 -0.20 151.42
4 9.83 16.54 635.43 -0.96 16.54 95.90 0.20 6.94 -14.40
5 9.83 11.67 454.66 -0.96 11.67 -84.89 0.20 2.08 -75.22
6 9.83 7.76 331.00 -0.96 7.76 -208.55 0.20 -1.84 -78.92
7 -5.99 9.83 243.07 -5.99 -0.96 -296.49 3.61 0.20 -46.89
8 -5.99 4.83 59.42 -5.99 -5.96 -210.36 3.61 -4.80 10.23
9 -5.99 0.00 0.00 -5.99 -10.79 0.00 3.61 -9.63 191.58
Table I-II-26 Absolute Maximum Total response of Along B (KN, KN-m)

1 69.37 -79.15 0.00 69.38 -52.65 0.00 43.19 -57.35 -900.36
2 69.37 -50.91 1610.66 69.38 -22.32 925.50 43.19 -26.53 151.03
3 69.37 -24.78 2470.60 69.38 13.16 1040.07 43.19 8.61 383.83
4 24.78 45.79 1791.34 -13.16 45.79 341.36 -8.61 19.79 -78.56
5 24.78 36.53 1296.18 -13.16 36.53 -245.00 -8.61 9.67 -208.42
6 24.78 32.58 870.19 -13.16 32.58 -612.24 -8.61 -10.90 -225.57
7 -30.54 24.78 628.22 -30.54 -13.15 -977.74 15.03 -8.61 -244.76
8 -30.54 12.61 158.54 -30.54 -19.50 -601.08 15.03 -15.63 66.30
9 -30.54 0.00 0.00 -30.54 -29.03 0.00 15.03 -25.45 550.55
Table I-II-27 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Along B (KN, KN-m)

1 42.10 -52.55 0.00 42.10 -36.85 0.00 25.51 -40.38 -612.07
2 42.10 -32.10 1042.11 42.10 -14.30 626.72 25.51 -17.35 111.52
3 42.10 -14.95 1549.39 42.10 12.19 658.39 25.51 8.81 232.41
4 14.95 29.25 1155.91 -12.19 29.25 245.46 -8.81 12.85 -64.16
5 14.95 24.85 841.52 -12.19 24.85 -160.12 -8.81 7.59 -133.21
6 14.95 24.82 539.19 -12.19 24.82 -403.69 -8.81 -9.06 -146.65
7 -24.55 14.95 385.15 -24.55 -12.19 -681.25 11.42 -8.81 -197.87
8 -24.55 7.77 99.12 -24.55 -13.54 -390.72 11.42 -10.84 56.07
9 -24.55 0.00 0.00 -24.55 -18.24 0.00 11.42 -15.82 358.97
— 207 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Along Frame B (KN, KN-m)
1 69.90 -74.70 0.00 69.90 -47.39 0.00 43.01 -51.50 -843.60
2 69.90 -48.76 1544.69 69.90 -21.45 861.85 43.01 -25.56 121.05
3 69.90 -20.28 2408.88 69.90 7.04 1043.20 43.01 2.92 405.20
4 20.28 47.42 1650.39 -7.04 47.42 284.68 -2.92 20.53 -17.19
5 20.28 35.89 1117.28 -7.04 35.89 -248.45 -2.92 9.00 -214.19
6 20.28 21.74 744.71 -7.04 21.74 -621.04 -2.92 -5.15 -250.64
7 -14.31 20.28 513.81 -14.32 -7.04 -851.97 12.57 -2.92 -145.44
8 -14.31 10.25 130.55 -14.32 -17.06 -552.34 12.57 -12.95 51.40
9 -14.31 0.00 0.00 -14.32 -27.32 0.00 12.57 -23.20 500.96
Table I-II-29 Gust Factor, Along Frame B

1 2.54 2.98 NaN 2.54 3.33 NaN 2.44 3.38 3.12
2 2.54 2.71 2.83 2.54 2.78 3.10 2.44 2.89 3.82
3 2.54 2.52 2.68 2.54 -7.25 2.72 2.44 -43.44 2.53
4 2.52 2.77 2.82 13.67 2.78 3.56 -43.44 2.85 5.46
5 2.52 3.13 2.85 13.67 3.33 2.89 -43.44 4.66 2.77
6 2.52 4.20 2.63 13.67 2.78 2.94 -43.43 5.93 2.86
7 5.10 2.52 2.58 5.10 13.67 3.30 4.16 -43.43 5.22
8 5.10 2.61 2.67 5.10 3.27 2.86 4.16 3.26 6.48
9 5.10 NaN NaN 5.10 2.69 NaN 4.16 2.64 2.87
Table I-II-30 Background Factor, Along Frame B

1 0.60 0.70 NaN 0.60 0.78 NaN 0.59 0.78 0.73
2 0.60 0.66 0.67 0.60 0.67 0.73 0.59 0.68 0.92
3 0.60 0.74 0.64 0.60 1.73 0.63 0.59 3.01 0.57
4 0.74 0.62 0.70 1.73 0.62 0.86 3.01 0.63 3.73
5 0.74 0.69 0.75 1.73 0.69 0.64 3.01 0.84 0.62
6 0.74 1.14 0.72 1.73 1.14 0.65 3.01 1.76 0.59
7 1.72 0.74 0.75 1.72 1.73 0.80 0.91 3.01 1.36
8 1.72 0.76 0.76 1.72 0.79 0.71 0.91 0.84 1.09
9 1.72 NaN NaN 1.72 0.67 NaN 0.91 0.68 0.72
— 208 —
Table I-II-31 Mean response of Along C (KN, KN-M)
1 27.43 -27.50 0.00 27.43 -16.77 0.00 17.64 -18.08 -299.06
2 27.43 -18.74 577.75 27.43 -8.02 309.63 17.64 -9.32 43.21
3 27.43 -9.48 922.84 27.43 1.25 386.61 17.64 -0.06 152.83
4 9.48 17.03 631.30 -1.25 17.03 95.06 0.06 7.24 -16.39
5 9.48 11.84 445.87 -1.25 11.84 -90.38 0.06 2.06 -79.50
6 9.48 7.72 321.72 -1.25 7.72 -214.54 0.06 -2.06 -81.33
7 -5.89 9.48 234.48 -5.89 -1.25 -301.79 3.89 0.06 -46.25
8 -5.89 4.68 57.19 -5.89 -6.05 -210.95 3.89 -4.74 11.96
9 -5.89 0.00 0.00 -5.89 -10.73 0.00 3.89 -9.42 190.27
Table I-II-32 Absolute Maximum Total response of Along C (KN, KN-M)

1 70.16 -77.11 0.00 70.16 -50.48 0.00 44.53 -55.24 -877.18
2 70.16 -50.10 1571.31 70.16 -22.77 900.47 44.53 -27.01 148.78
3 70.16 -26.10 2429.13 70.16 13.21 1038.75 44.53 8.73 391.50
4 26.10 46.97 1682.21 -13.21 46.97 322.79 -8.73 20.35 -89.12
5 26.10 34.86 1199.57 -13.21 34.86 -268.85 -8.73 9.04 -229.60
6 26.10 31.13 895.85 -13.21 31.14 -601.94 -8.73 -10.20 -235.07
7 -29.44 26.10 694.19 -29.44 -13.21 -940.57 14.57 -8.73 -235.06
8 -29.44 14.37 183.87 -29.44 -18.78 -573.59 14.57 -14.84 69.41
9 -29.44 0.00 0.00 -29.44 -27.81 0.00 14.57 -24.68 523.05
Table I-II-33 Absolute Maximum Dynamic response of Along C (KN, KN-M)

1 42.73 -49.61 0.00 42.73 -33.71 0.00 26.89 -37.16 -578.12
2 42.73 -31.35 993.57 42.73 -14.75 590.84 26.89 -17.69 105.57
3 42.73 -16.63 1506.29 42.73 11.97 652.15 26.89 8.78 238.67
4 16.63 29.94 1050.90 -11.97 29.94 227.73 -8.78 13.11 -72.74
5 16.63 23.01 753.70 -11.97 23.01 -178.47 -8.78 6.98 -150.10
6 16.63 23.41 574.13 -11.97 23.41 -387.40 -8.78 8.43 -153.74
7 -23.55 16.63 459.71 -23.55 -11.97 -638.78 10.68 -8.78 -188.80
8 -23.55 9.69 126.68 -23.55 -12.73 -362.64 10.68 -10.10 57.46
9 -23.55 0.00 0.00 -23.55 -17.09 0.00 10.68 -15.26 332.79
— 209 —
Distribution Based on POD Pressure Sign, Along Frame C (KN, KN-m)
1 69.81 -72.84 0.00 69.81 -45.85 0.00 43.85 -49.84 -814.97
2 69.81 -47.91 1508.92 69.81 -20.93 834.34 43.85 -24.91 118.88
3 69.81 -20.41 2366.21 69.81 6.57 1017.04 43.85 2.59 401.10
4 20.41 46.20 1610.33 -6.57 46.20 261.15 -2.59 20.24 -30.24
5 20.41 33.79 1098.31 -6.57 33.79 -250.89 -2.59 7.83 -217.73
6 20.41 19.76 745.88 -6.57 19.76 -603.35 -2.59 -6.20 -245.62
7 -12.55 20.41 537.59 -12.55 -6.57 -811.67 13.42 -2.59 -129.39
8 -12.55 11.05 142.06 -12.55 -15.94 -532.56 13.42 -11.96 50.22
9 -12.55 0.00 0.00 -12.55 -26.99 0.00 13.42 -23.01 483.28
Table I-II-35 Gust Factor, Along Frame C

1 2.56 2.80 NaN 2.56 3.01 NaN 2.52 3.06 2.93
2 2.56 2.67 2.72 2.56 2.84 2.91 2.52 2.90 3.44
3 2.56 2.75 2.63 2.56 10.59 2.69 2.52 -152.67 2.56
4 2.75 2.76 2.66 10.59 2.76 3.40 -152.64 2.81 5.44
5 2.75 2.94 2.69 10.59 2.94 2.97 -152.61 4.39 2.89
6 2.75 4.03 2.78 10.59 4.03 2.81 -152.57 4.94 2.89
7 5.00 2.75 2.96 5.00 10.59 3.12 3.74 -152.52 5.08
8 5.00 3.07 3.22 5.00 4.03 2.72 3.74 3.13 5.81
9 5.00 NaN NaN 5.00 -5.07 NaN 3.74 2.62 2.75
Table I-II-36 Background Factor, Along Frame C

1 0.61 0.68 NaN 0.61 0.74 NaN 0.61 0.75 0.71
2 0.61 0.65 0.66 0.61 0.70 0.71 0.61 0.71 0.89
3 0.61 0.81 0.64 0.61 1.82 0.64 0.61 3.39 0.60
4 0.81 0.65 0.65 1.82 0.65 0.87 3.39 0.65 2.41
5 0.81 0.68 0.69 1.82 0.68 0.71 3.39 0.89 0.69
6 0.81 1.18 0.77 1.82 1.18 0.64 3.39 -1.36 0.63
7 1.88 0.81 0.86 1.88 1.82 0.79 0.80 3.39 1.46
8 1.88 0.88 0.89 1.88 0.80 0.68 0.80 0.84 1.14
9 1.88 NaN NaN 1.88 0.63 NaN 0.80 0.66 0.69
— 210 —
APPENDIX II
—
Figure II-1 Pressure distribution on Frame A for Universal ESWL Figure II-3 Pressure distribution on Frame C for Universal ESWL
211 —
reproducing maximum axial forces N (mode=5, AOA=0º) reproducing maximum axial forces N (mode=5, AOA=0º)
Figure II-2 Pressure distribution on Frame B for Universal ESWL Figure II-4 Pressure distribution on Frame D for Universal ESWL
—
Figure II-7 Pressure distribution on Frame C for Universal ESWL

Figure II-5 Pressure distribution on Frame A for Universal ESWL
reproducing maximum shear forces Q (mode=5, AOA=0º)
212 —
reproducing maximum shear forces Q (mode=5, AOA=0º) reproducing maximum shear forces Q (mode=5, AOA=0º)
—

213 —
reproducing maximum bending moment M (mode=5, AOA=0º)

Figure II-12 Pressure distribution on Frame D for Universal ESWL

Figure II-10 Pressure distribution on Frame B for Universal ESWL
—
reproducing all the maximum responses NQM (mode=5, AOA=0º) reproducing all the maximum responses NQM (mode=5, AOA=0º)
214 —
—
215 —
—

216 —


reproducing maximum shear forces Q (mode=10, AOA=0º) Figure II-26 Pressure distribution on Frame B for Universal ESWL
—
217 —
reproducing maximum bending moment M (mode=10, AOA=0º) reproducing maximum bending moment M (mode=10, AOA=0º)
Figure II-28 Pressure distribution on Frame D for Universal ESWL Figure II-30 Pressure distribution on Frame B for Universal ESWL
reproducing maximum bending moment M (mode=10, AOA=0º) reproducing all the maximum responses NQM (mode=10, AOA=0º)
—
218 —
—
reproducing all the maximum responses NQM (mode=10, AOA=0º) reproducing maximum axial forces N (mode=15, AOA=0º)
219 —
reproducing maximum axial forces N (mode=15, AOA=0º)
—
220 —


reproducing maximum shear forces Q (mode=15, AOA=0º) Figure II-42 Pressure distribution on Frame B for Universal ESWL
—

221 —

—
222 —

Figure II-45 Pressure distribution on Frame A for Universal ESWL reproducing all the maximum responses NQM (mode=15, AOA=0º)
reproducing all the maximum responses NQM (mode=15, AOA=0º)
—
223 —
reproducing maximum axial forces N (mode=5, AOA=90º) Figure II-54 Pressure distribution on Frame B for Universal ESWL
—

224 —
—
reproducing maximum shear forces Q (mode=5, AOA=90º) reproducing maximum bending moment M (mode=5, AOA=90º)
225 —
reproducing maximum bending moment M (mode=5, AOA=90º) reproducing maximum bending moment M (mode=5, AOA=90º)
—

226 —
—
227 —

—

228 —
—

229 —

reproducing maximum bending moment M (mode=10, AOA=90º) Figure II-75 Pressure distribution on Frame C for Universal ESWL
—

230 —

reproducing all the maximum responses NQM (mode=10, AOA=90º) Figure II-82 Pressure distribution on Frame B for Universal ESWL
—

231 —
—
232 —


—

233 —
reproducing maximum shear forces Q (mode=15, AOA=90º) Figure II-89 Pressure distribution on Frame A for Universal ESWL
reproducing maximum shear forces Q (mode=15, AOA=90º) reproducing maximum bending moment M (mode=15, AOA=90º)
—
Figure II-91 Pressure distribution on Frame C for Universal ESWL Figure II-93 Pressure distribution on Frame A for Universal ESWL
234 —
reproducing all the maximum responses NQM (mode=15, AOA=90º) reproducing maximum axial forces N based on LRC method (AOA=0
—
º)
235 —
reproducing all the maximum responses NQM (mode=15, AOA=90º) reproducing maximum axial forces N based on LRC method (AOA=0
º)
reproducing maximum shear forces Q based on LRC method
—
reproducing maximum axial forces N based on LRC method (AOA=0

º) (AOA=0º)
236 —
reproducing maximum axial forces N based on LRC method (AOA=0 reproducing maximum shear forces Q based on LRC method
º) (AOA=0º)
reproducing maximum shear forces Q based on LRC method Figure II-105 Pressure distribution on Frame A for Universal ESWL
—
(AOA=0º) reproducing maximum bending moment M based on LRC method

237 —
(AOA=0º)

reproducing maximum shear forces Q based on LRC method Figure II-106 Pressure distribution on Frame B for Universal ESWL
(AOA=0º) reproducing maximum bending moment M based on LRC method
(AOA=0º)
reproducing maximum bending moment M based on LRC method reproducing all the maximum responses NQM based on LRC method
—
(AOA=0º) (AOA=0º)
238 —
(AOA=0º) (AOA=0º)
reproducing all the maximum responses NQM based on LRC method reproducing maximum axial forces N based on LRC method
—
(AOA=0º) (AOA=90º)
239 —

reproducing all the maximum responses NQM based on LRC method Figure II-114 Pressure distribution on Frame B for Universal ESWL
(AOA=0º) reproducing maximum axial forces N based on LRC method
(AOA=90º)
reproducing maximum axial forces N based on LRC method reproducing maximum shear forces Q based on LRC method
—
240 —
reproducing maximum axial forces N based on LRC method reproducing maximum shear forces Q based on LRC method
reproducing maximum shear forces Q based on LRC method reproducing maximum bending moment M based on LRC method
—
241 —

reproducing maximum bending moment M based on LRC method
reproducing maximum shear forces Q based on LRC method
(AOA=90º)
(AOA=90º)
—
242 —
reproducing all the maximum responses NQM based on LRC method
—
(AOA=90º)
243 —

reproducing all the maximum responses NQM based on LRC method
(AOA=90º)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

WIND LOADING EFFECTS AND EQUIVALENT STATIC

WIND LOADING ON LOW-RISE BUILDINGS

XIAOHONG HU, M.S.

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

Douglas A. Smith, PH.D.

Kishor C. Mehta, PH.D.

Chris W. Letchford, PH.D.

Xinzhong Chen, PH.D.

Kathleen Gilliam, PH.D.

Wind-induced pressures acting on the Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory

1.1 Introduction with an Objective and Scope 1

II INTEGRATED WIND LOADS ON A FULL-SCALE LOW-RISE

IV EQUIVALENT STATIC WIND LOAD 130

4.1 Introduction 130

V SUMMARY, CONTRIBUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 179

5.1 Summary 179

APPENDIX I-PART I: WERFL BUILDING 183

APPENDIX I-PART II: TAMURA WIND MODEL 199

2.1 Mean and standard deviation of the along-wind, across-wind and

1.1 Examples of instantaneous pressure distributions causing maximum

1.1 Introduction with an Objective and Scope

To investigate wind loading on low-rise buildings, it is necessary to have some idea

The main objectives of the thesis are,

(1) to give a view of pressure distributions characteristics around low-rise building;

Wind-induced pressures acting on the Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory

Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory (WERFL) of Texas Tech University is

Utilization of manifolds and development of the well-known pneumatic averaging

Besides these techniques discussed above, Computational Wind Engineering (CWE)

Several methods are developed to establish equivalent static wind loading(ESWL).

Consequently a simplified approach to analyze the dynamic response induced by wind

Another approach to investigate the equivalent static load distribution is to use a

The instantaneous value of r can be expressed as

where p ( z , t ) is the fluctuating pressure at z, and L is the length of the structure,

where p ( z , t ) is the mean pressure at z

The standard deviation of r, σ r , B , is given by

where, the subscript of B represents background response, the superscript indicates a

So the expected maximum response r will be expressed as

Correspondingly, the LRC formula for pressure distribution is as follows

(a) causing CDmax (b) causing CLmax (c) causing CMTmax

Figure 1.2 Cross-correlation coefficients between wind forces

CD- CL CD- CMT CL- CMT

Figure 1.3 cross-correlation coefficients between absolute wind forces

consider its combination with along-wind and across-wind should be investigated in

1.4 Wind Loads on Tall Building

By recognition of the shortcoming of the traditional DGLF, Davenport (Davenport,

1.4.1 DGLF approach

The traditional GLF or DGLF is described as follows:

In the DGLF approach, the peak load is expressed as

consideration; P (z ) is the mean wind force, z is the position coordinate.

In the DGLF method, G is given in terms of the displacement response

displacement respectively. For a stationary process, GY can be expressed as:

where g Y is the displacement peak factor; σ Y (z ) is root mean square(RMS)

displacement; B and R are background and resonant factors, respectively; I H is the

The mean wind load is as follows:

Alternatively, the displacement gust factor can be expressed as

process g R = 2 ln( f 1T ) + 0.5772 / 2 ln( f 1T ) in which T is the observation time, and

Equation (1.14) can be rewritten in terms of mean, background and resonant

generalized load, stiffness and mass of the first mode, respectively.

Usually the mode shape is approximated by exponential function

where c and β are constants, the mass is assumed to be linearly distributed as

λ is the mass reduction factor

The fluctuating displacement can be approximated by that in the first mode

where S ξ1 is the power spectral density function of the fluctuating generalized

where S u ( f ) is the PSD of fluctuating wind velocity, χ ( β , f ) the aerodynamic

R X ( x1 , x 2 , f ) = exp(−(C X f / U (h)) x1 − x 2 ) (1.25)

RZ ( z1 , z 2 , f ) = exp(−(C Z f / U (h)) z1 − z 2 ) (1.26)