The UWO contribution to the NIST aerodynamic database for wind loads on low buildings: Part 2. Comparison of data with wind load provisions

Abstract Wind tunnel test data on generic low buildings have been obtained at the University of Western Ontario (UWO) to contribute to the NIST aerodynamic database. In Part 1 the basic data and archiving format are presented. In the present paper, data from two models of different roof slope (1:12 and 3:12) at four eave heights each (4.9 m (16 ft), 7.3 m (24 ft), 9.8 m (32 ft), and 12.2 m (40 ft)), in open and suburban terrain conditions, were examined in detail. The data were compared to the historical data obtained by Stathopoulos in the late 1970s from which current North American code provisions were developed. Structural response coefficients were calculated on an assumed structural system and these data were compared with the current wind load provisions for low buildings in the ASCE 7-02 (ASCE Standard, Minimum Design Loads for Building and other Structures, ASCE 7-02, ASCE, New York, USA, 2002), the AS/NZS 1170.2 (Australian/New Zealand Standard Structural Design Actions, Part 2: 2002—AS/NZS 1170.2:2002, Standards Australia International Ltd., Sydney, AS and Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, 2002), the Eurocode (Eurocode 1: Basis of Design and Actions on Structures. Part 2–4: Wind Actions, ENV–1991–2–4–1, CFN, Brussels, 1995), and the NBCC (National Building Code for Canada 1995 (NBCC(1995)); Includes User's Guide—NBC 1995 Structural Commentaries (Part 4), NRCC, Ottawa, Canada, 1995. The peak response coefficients from the current data set were found to increase with eave height. The ASCE 7-02 and the NBCC (1995) underestimated the peak response coefficients calculated for the current data set by ∼15% for the lowest eave height; and were worse for larger eave heights. Generally, the Eurocode (ENV, 1995) wind load provisions match the peak response coefficients from the data set at all eave heights. The response coefficients calculated using the AS/NZS (2002) provisions were generally a good match for the interior region only, however they significantly underestimated the wind tunnel response coefficients for the end bays.