545 Station ST Box Hill Wind Report

Sydney (Head Office) Melbourne Singapore Abu Dhabi Mumbai Shanghai
19 Willis Street WOLLI CREEK NSW 2250 P: +61 2 9567 0722 F: +61 2 9567 0733
Windtech Consultants Pty Ltd ABN: 72 050 574 037 reception@windtech.com.au www.windtech.com.au

PEDESTRIAN WIND ENVIRONMENT STUDY
545 STATION STREET, BOX HILL
WB213-06F01(REV1)- WE REPORT
8 APRIL 2013

Prepared for:
AXF Development (Box Hill Landmark) Pty Ltd
438 Docklands Drive,
Docklands, VIC 3008
Attention: Mr Robert Rafaniello
Windtech Consultants Pty Ltd - Sydney (Head Office) Pedestrian Wind Environment Study
Sydney Office 545 Station Street, Box Hill
WB213-06F01(rev1)- WE Report AXF Development (Box Hill Landmark) Pty Ltd
8 April 2013 Page ii

DOCUMENT CONTROL
Date Revision History
Non-
Issued
Revision
Issued
Revision
Prepared By
(initials)
Instructed By
(initials)
Reviewed &
Authorised by
(initials)
28/02/2013
Update of previous study
(report reference WB213-
05F02(rev0), dated
14/01/2013).
- 0 MC / BU TR TR
8/4/2013
Update of previous study
(report reference WB213-
06F02(rev0), dated
28/02/2013).
- 1 BU TR TR

The work presented in this document was carried out in accordance with the Windtech Consultants Quality Assurance System, which is
based on International Standard ISO 9001.
This document is issued subject to review and authorisation by the Team Leader noted by the initials printed in the last column above.
If no initials appear, this document shall be considered as preliminary or draft only and no reliance shall be placed upon it other than
for information to be verified later.
This document is prepared for our Client's particular requirements which are based on a specific brief with limitations as agreed to with
the Client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by a third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party
without prior consent provided by Windtech Consultants. The information herein should not be reproduced, presented or reviewed
except in full. Prior to passing on to a third party, the Client is to fully inform the third party of the specific brief and limitations
associated with the commission.

8 April 2013 Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a detailed investigation into the wind environment impact of
the development located at 545 Station Street, Box Hill, as per architectural drawings by the
Buchan Group received April 5, 2013, as well as Revision D of the landscape drawings by
Rush/Wright Associates received March 19, 2013. Testing was performed using Windtechs
boundary layer wind tunnel, which has a 2.6m wide working section and has a fetch length of
14m. Measurements were carried out using a 1:400 detailed scale model of the development.
The effect of nearby buildings and land topography has been accounted for through the use of a
proximity model, which represents a radius of approximately 500m from the development site.
Peak gust and mean wind speeds were measured at selected study point locations within and
around the development. Wind speed velocity coefficients representing the local wind speeds
are derived from the wind tunnel and are combined with the meteorological data for this region
to provide the equivalent full-scale wind speeds. These wind speed measurements are
compared with criteria for pedestrian comfort and safety, based on annual maximum gust wind
speeds and weekly maximum Gust Equivalent Mean (GEM) wind speeds.
The model of the development was tested initially without the effect of any forms of wind
ameliorating devices such as strategic planting, balustrades, screens, canopies, etc, that are not
already shown in the architectural drawings. If the results of the tests indicate adverse wind
conditions, then retests were performed with various forms ameliorative treatments until
satisfactory wind conditions are achieved.
With the inclusion of the latest architectural and proposed landscape drawings, the results of
this study indicate that no treatments are required as the development will satisfy the required
pedestrian comfort criteria for all public and private outdoor spaces.
The following features are found to be important in ensuring that the outdoor trafficable areas
have acceptable wind conditions:
Planting of densely foliating evergreen trees, capable of growing to a height of 4m with
a 3m wide canopy, along Station Street and Carrington Road, as outlined in Revision D
of the landscape drawings.
Retain the existing trees along Carrington Road, as outlined in Revision D of the
landscape drawings.
Awnings extending from the eastern and southern Level 1 faade over the Ground
Level.
2m high impermeable screens along the eastern terrace areas of Level 3.
An awning extending from the Level 5 faade over the southern terrace of Level 3.
Bifolds along at least one edge of the north-west and south-west corner balconies on
Levels 30 to 33.
8 April 2013 Page iv

CONTENTS
Executive Summary iii
1 Description and Location of the Development 1
2 Wind Climate of the Melbourne Region 3
3 The Wind Tunnel Model 5
4 Boundary Layer Wind Flow Model 9
5 Reference Wind Speeds for the Study 12
6 Test Procedure and Layout of Study Points 13
6.1 Test Procedure 13
6.2 Layout of Study Points for this Study 15
7 Environmental Wind Speed Criteria 23
7.1 Davenports Criteria for Mean Wind Speeds 24
7.2 Lawsons Criteria for Mean Wind Speeds 24
7.3 Melbournes Criteria for Peak Wind Speeds 25
7.4 Comparison of the Various Wind Speed Criteria 25
7.5 Wind Speed Criteria Used for This Study 26
8 Results and Discussion 28
8.1 Ground Level Trafficable Areas 28
8.1.1 The Study Points 28
8.1.2 Applicable Criteria 28
8.1.3 Results and Recommendations 29
8.2 Levels 1, 3 and 5 Communal Terrace Areas 29
8.3 Critical Balcony Areas 30
9 Conclusion 32
References 33
APPENDIX A - Plots of the Wind Tunnel Results
APPENDIX B - Plots of the Wind Tunnel Boundary Layer Profiles

8 April 2013 Page 1

1 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
The development is located within the suburb of Box Hill, to the east of the Melbourne CBD,
and is located at 545 Station Street. To the north of the site is the suburb of Doncaster while to
the south is the suburb of Burwood. To the east and west of the site are the suburbs of
Blackburn and Surrey Hills. Surrounding the site to the immediate north and west is the Centro
Box Hill shopping centre, which also incorporates the Box Hill train station and bus interchange.
Further to the north of the site in the Box Hill CBD, with predominantly low-rise industrial and
commercial buildings surround the site in all directions. Further beyond this are predominantly
low-rise residential houses and apartment complexes. An aerial image of the site location is
shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Aerial Image of the Site Location
The proposed development consists of a 7 storey podium consisting primarily of
retail/commercial space which covers the entirety of the site. An L-shaped tower is proposed
atop the podium which runs along the western aspect and to the south-eastern corner of the
site. The main component of the development is 118.3 metres in height above Station Street.
8 April 2013 Page 2

Pedestrian footpaths are located along Station Street to the east and Carrington Street to the
south. Caf seating areas are currently located on the southern side of Carrington Street.
Communal outdoor terraces areas are located on the eastern and southern aspects of the site
on Ground and Levels 1, 3 and 5 of the development, while private balcony areas are proposed
on all aspects of the tower component of the development.

Figure 2a: Perspective Image of the Site Location

Figure 2b: Perspective Image of the Site Location
8 April 2013 Page 3

2 WIND CLIMATE OF THE MELBOURNE REGION
The wind climate data used in this study is based on an analysis of 40 years of recorded mean
wind speed data obtained at the meteorological recording station located within Melbourne
Airport, from 1970 to 2009. A plot of the wind speed observation data is presented in Figure 3
below, referenced to a height of 10m above ground in open terrain and converted to hourly
means. This data is also presented in Table 1, which also presents the corresponding 3-second
gust wind speeds. The frequency of occurrence of the regional winds is also shown in Figure 3
for each wind direction. Note that the recurrence intervals examined in this study are for annual
and weekly maximum winds.
The data indicates that the maximum wind speeds for the region are governed primarily by
northerly and westerly winds. Additionally, the most frequent winds for the region occur from
the north, south and west. Note that easterly winds are quite rare for this region.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Annual maximum mean wind speed (m/s)
Percent of all observations
Percent of all observations greater than 20km/h
Weekly maximum mean wind speed (m/s)

Figure 3: Annual and Weekly Maximum Hourly Mean Wind Speeds, and Frequencies of
Occurrence, for the Melbourne Region (referenced to open terrain at 10m)

8 April 2013 Page 4

Table 1: Regional Directional Wind Speeds for the Melbourne Region
(hourly means and corresponding 3-second gusts,
referenced to 10m height in open terrain)
Reference Wind Speeds (m/s)
Weekly Recurrence Annual Recurrence Wind
Direction
Hourly
Mean
3-second Gust
Hourly
Mean
3-second Gust
N 12.9 19.7 16.2 24.8
NNE 6.8 10.4 12.0 18.3
NE 0.9 1.4 6.7 10.2
ENE 0.9 1.4 4.1 6.3
E 0.9 1.4 4.5 6.9
ESE 0.9 1.4 5.6 8.5
SE 3.0 4.5 8.9 13.5
SSE 5.9 9.1 9.0 13.7
S 8.2 12.5 10.6 16.1
SSW 6.4 9.8 9.7 14.8
SW 6.8 10.4 10.6 16.2
WSW 7.6 11.5 11.4 17.5
W 8.3 12.7 12.3 18.7
WNW 5.2 7.9 10.1 15.5
NW 4.8 7.4 9.5 14.5
NNW 7.2 11.0 11.3 17.3

8 April 2013 Page 5

3 THE WIND TUNNEL MODEL
Wind tunnel testing was undertaken to obtain accurate wind speed measurements at selected
critical outdoor locations within and around the development using a 1:400 scale model. The
detailed study model incorporates all of the architectural features on the facades, except for
those elements that have maximum sectional dimensions of less than approximately 1m, which
is appropriate for this type of study. The effect of nearby buildings and significant land
topography effects within a radius of 500m from the centre of the subject development site has
been accounted for through the use of a proximity model. It should be noted that two
surrounds configurations were tested for the subject development. The configurations included:
The existing subject site with existing surrounding buildings.
The proposed development with the existing surrounding buildings.

Photographs of the wind tunnel model that have been used for this project are presented in
Figures 4a to 4e below.

Figure 4a: Photograph of the Wind Tunnel Model (view from the south)
8 April 2013 Page 6

Figure 4b: Photograph of the Wind Tunnel Model (view from the north-east)

Figure 4c: Photograph of the Wind Tunnel Model (view from the north-west)

8 April 2013 Page 7

Figure 4d: Photograph of the Wind Tunnel Model (close-up view from the south-east)
8 April 2013 Page 8

Figure 4e: Photograph of the Wind Tunnel Model (close-up view from the north-east)
8 April 2013 Page 9

4 BOUNDARY LAYER WIND FLOW MODEL
The roughness of the earths surface has the effect of slowing down the prevailing wind near
the ground. This effect is observed up to what is known as the boundary layer height, which
can range between 500m to 3km above the earth surface depending on the roughness of the
surface (ie: oceans, open farmland, dense urban cities, etc). Within this range, the prevailing
wind forms what is known as a boundary wind profile.
Various wind codes and standards classify various types of boundary layer wind flows
depending on the surface roughness. However, it should be noted that the wind profile does not
change instantly due to changes in the terrain roughness. It can take many kilometres (at least
100km) of a constant surface roughness for the boundary layer profile to achieve a state of
equilibrium. Aerial images representing ranges of 5km and 50km from the site is shown in
Figures 5a and 5b respectively on the following pages.
Description of the standard layer profiles for various terrain types are summarised as follows:
Terrain Category 1.0: Extremely flat terrain. Examples include inland water bodies
such as lakes, dams, rivers, etc.
Terrain Category 1.5: Relatively flat terrain. Examples include oceans and desert.
Terrain Category 2.0: Open terrain. Examples include grassy fields and plains and
open farmland (without buildings or trees)
Terrain Category 2.5: Relatively open terrain. Examples include farmland with
scattered trees and buildings and very low-density suburban areas.
Terrain Category 3.0: Suburban and forest terrain. Examples include suburban areas
of towns and areas with dense vegetation such as forests, bushland, etc.
Terrain Category 3.5: Relatively dense suburban terrain. Examples include centres
of small cities, industrial parks, etc.
Terrain Category 4.0: Dense urban terrain. Examples include centres of large cities
with many high-rise towers, and also areas with many closely-spaced mid-rise
buildings.
For this study, the shape of the boundary layer wind flows over standard terrain types is
defined as per ISO4354:2009. These are summarised in Table 2, referenced to the study
reference height of 118.3m above ground. An analysis of the effect of changes in the upwind
terrain roughness was carried out for each of the wind directions studied. This has been
undertaken based on the method given in ESDU-82026:2002 and ESDU-83045:2002.

8 April 2013 Page 10

Table 2: Terrain & Height Multipliers and Turbulence Intensities,
and the Corresponding Roughness Lengths, for the Standard
ISO4354:2009 Boundary Layer Profiles
Terrain & Height Multipliers
(at 118.3m above ground)
Terrain
Category
s T tr
k
3600 , =

(hourly)
s T tr
k
600 , =

(10-minute)
s T tr
k
3 , =

(3-second)
Turbulence
Intensity
m v
I
3 . 118 ,

Roughness
Length (m)
r
z
, 0

1.0 1.06 1.08 1.34 0.091 0.003
1.5 1.01 1.04 1.33 0.106 0.01
2.0 0.96 0.99 1.31 0.123 0.03
2.5 0.89 0.93 1.28 0.148 0.1
3.0 0.82 0.86 1.25 0.178 0.3
3.5 0.72 0.77 1.21 0.224 1
4.0 0.62 0.67 1.15 0.290 3

Figure 5a: Aerial Image showing the Surrounding Terrain
(radius of 5km from the edge of the proximity model, which is coloured red)

Figure 5b: Aerial Image showing the Surrounding Terrain
(within a radius of 50km from the development site)


5 REFERENCE WIND SPEEDS FOR THE STUDY
The reference hourly mean wind speeds that are used for this study are calculated for each
wind direction at the reference height of 118.3m above ground, at the upwind edge of the
proximity model (500m upwind of the site). These values are presented in Table 3, and are
derived from the 3-second gust wind speed data obtained at the meteorological station at
Melbourne Airport, from 1970 to 2007 (see Table 1 of this report), which is referenced to a
height of 10m in open terrain, by applying the hourly mean terrain and height multiplier that
were calculated from the analysis of the surrounding terrain types (shown in Table 3 below).

Table 3: Reference Wind Speeds Upwind of the Development Site
(referenced to a height of 118.3m above ground)
Hourly Mean Wind Speed (m/s)
Wind
Direction
Hourly Mean
Terrain & Height
Multiplier
s T tr
k
3600 , =

Weekly
Recurrence
Annual
Recurrence
N 0.83 16.4 20.6
NNE 0.85 8.8 15.4
NE 0.85 1.2 8.7
ENE 0.85 1.2 5.3
E 0.84 1.2 5.8
ESE 0.84 1.2 7.2
SE 0.84 3.8 11.4
SSE 0.85 7.7 11.6
S 0.86 10.7 13.8
SSW 0.85 8.4 12.6
SW 0.86 8.9 13.9
WSW 0.85 9.9 14.9
W 0.83 10.6 15.6
WNW 0.84 6.6 12.9
NW 0.84 6.2 12.2
NNW 0.84 9.2 14.5


6 TEST PROCEDURE AND LAYOUT OF STUDY POINTS
6.1 Test Procedure
Testing was performed using Windtechs boundary layer wind tunnel facility, which has a 2.6m
wide working section and has a fetch length of 14m. Due to the effective blockage-tolerant
design of Windtechs wind tunnel, no correction is required for blockage effects.
The model of the subject development was setup within the wind tunnel, and peak gust and
mean wind speeds were measured in the form of velocity coefficients which are then related to
reference wind speeds for each of the selected locations that were tested for this study. Wind
speed measurements are made in the wind tunnel for sixteen wind directions, at 22.5 degree
increments.
The free-stream and test location air currents were monitored using a set of four Dantec hot-
wire probe anemometers. The probe support for each study location was mounted such that the
probe wire was vertical as much as possible, which ensures that the measured wind speeds are
independent of wind direction along the horizontal plane. In addition, care was taken in the
alignment of the probe wire and in avoiding wall-heating effects. This procedure provides
comprehensive information about the wind environment to be expected at each of the study
locations for the various wind directions.
The output from the hot-wire probes was obtained using a National Instruments 12-bit data
acquisition card. The signal was low pass filtered at 32 Hz and results in Peak gust being the
equivalent of the 2 to 3 second gust on which the criteria are based. A sample rate of 1000
samples per second was used, which is more than adequate for he given frequency band.
The mean and the maximum 3-second duration peak gust coefficients were derived from the
following relation:
V
g V V .
+ = (6.1)
where: V
is the 3-second gust velocity.

V is the mean velocity.
g is the gust factor, which is taken to be 3.5.
V
is the standard deviation of the velocity measurement.
The mean free-stream wind speed measured in the wind tunnel for this study was
approximately 11.2m/s. Note that the measurement location for the mean free-stream wind
speed is at a height of 200m at the upwind edge of the proximity model. The resulting velocity
scale range was of approximately 1:0.5 to 1:1.9 for the annual maximum peak wind speeds.
Hence the sample length in the model scale of 11 seconds is equivalent to a range of

approximately 36 to 138 minutes in full-scale for the annual maximum peak wind speeds,
which is suitable for this type of study.
For each of the sixteen wind directions, peak gust and mean wind speed coefficients were
measured using the hot-wire anemometers at selected study point locations at a full-scale
height of approximately 1.5m. The full-scale wind speed at these study location are then
obtained from the measured coefficients for each wind direction using the relationship as
described in Equation 6.2.
=
=
=
m
study
s T tr m
s T tr m
m ref study
HW
HW
k
k
V V
200 3600 , , 3 . 118
3600 , , 200
3 . 118 ,
(6.2)
where:
study
V is the full-scale wind velocity at the study point location, in m/s.
m ref
V
3 . 118 ,
is the full-scale reference wind speed at the upwind edge of the
proximity model, referenced to 118.3m above ground (see Table 3).
s T tr m
k
3600 , , 200 =
is the hourly mean terrain and height multiplier at 200m
height for the terrain category setup used in the wind tunnel tests.
s T tr m
k
3600 , , 3 . 118 =
is the hourly mean terrain and height multiplier at 118.3m
height (see Table 3).
study
HW is the measurement obtained from the hot-wire anemometer at
the study point location.
m
HW
200
is the measurement obtained from the hot-wire anemometer at
the free-stream reference location at 200m height upwind of the model in
the wind tunnel.


6.2 Layout of Study Points for this Study
For this study a total of 41 study points were selected for detailed analysis. These include the
following:
23 study point locations representing the pedestrian thoroughfares, building entrances
and pick-up/drop-off areas on the Ground Level.
2 study point locations representing the outdoor terraces on Level 1.
4 study point locations representing the outdoor terraces on Level 3.
1 study point location representing the outdoor terrace on Level 5.
5 study point locations representing the private and office balcony areas of Level 9.
3 study point locations representing the private balcony areas of Level 28.
3 study point locations representing the private balcony areas of Level 30.
The locations of the various study points tested for this study are also shown in Figures 6a to
6g on the following pages.
The model of the development was initially tested without the effect of any forms of wind
ameliorating devices such as balustrades, screens, canopies, etc that are not already shown in
the architectural drawings. It should be noted that the effect of vegetation was also not
included in the initial tests. If the results of the tests indicated adverse wind conditions, then
retests were undertaken with ameliorative treatments until satisfactory wind conditions were
achieved.


Figure 6a: Study Point Locations Ground Level

Figure 6b: Study Point Locations Level 1


Figure 6c: Study Point Locations Level 3


Figure 6d: Study Point Locations Level 5


Figure 6e: Study Point Locations Level 9


Figure 6f: Study Point Locations Level 28


Figure 6g: Study Point Locations Level 30


7 ENVIRONMENTAL WIND SPEED CRITERIA
The acceptability of wind in any area is dependent upon its use. For example, people walking or
window-shopping will tolerate higher wind speeds than those seated at an outdoor restaurant.
The following table developed by Penwarden (1975) is a modified version of the Beaufort Scale,
and describes the effects of various wind intensities on people. Note that the applicability
column related to wind conditions occurring frequently (approximately once per week on
average). Higher ranges of wind speeds can be tolerated for rarer events.

Table 4: Summary of Wind Effects on People (after Penwarden, 1975)
Type of Winds
Beaufort
Number
Mean Wind
Speed (m/s)
Effects
Calm, light air 1 0 - 1.5 Calm, no noticeable wind
Light breeze 2 1.6 - 3.3 Wind felt on face
Gentle breeze 3 3.4 - 5.4 Hair is disturbed, Clothing flaps
Moderate breeze 4 5.5 - 7.9 Raises dust, dry soil and loose paper - Hair
disarranged
Fresh breeze 5 8.0 10.7 Force of wind felt on body
Strong breeze 6 10.8 13.8 Umbrellas used with difficulty, Hair blown straight,
Difficult to walk steadily, Wind noise on ears
unpleasant.
Near gale 7 13.9 17.1 Inconvenience felt when walking.
Gale 8 17.2 -20.7 Generally impedes progress, Great difficulty with
balance.
Strong gale 9 20.8 24.4 People blown over by gusts.

Lawson (1973) quotes that Beaufort 4 wind speeds (6 to 8m/s means) would be acceptable if it
is not exceeded for more than 4% of the time; and a Beaufort 6 (11 to 14m/s means) as being
unacceptable if it is exceeded more than 2% of the time.


7.1 Davenports Criteria for Mean Wind Speeds
Davenport (1972) had also come up with a set of criteria in terms of the Beaufort Scale and for
various return periods. The values presented in Table 5 below are based on a frequency of
exceedance of once per week (a probability of exceedance of 5%).

Table 5: Criteria by Davenport (1972)
Classification Human Activities
95 Percentile Maximum Mean
(once per week)
Walking Fast Acceptable for walking, main
public accessways
10 m/s > u > 7.5 m/s
Strolling, Skating Slow walking, etc. 7.5 m/s > u > 5.5 m/s
Short Exposure Activities Generally acceptable for walking &
short duration stationary activities
such as window-shopping,
standing or sitting in plazas.
5.5 m/s > u > 3.5 m/s
Long Exposure Activities Generally acceptable for long
duration stationary activities such
as in outdoor restaurants &
theatres and in parks.
3.5 m/s > u

7.2 Lawsons Criteria for Mean Wind Speeds
Later, Lawson (1975) came up with a set of criteria very similar to those of Davenports. These
are presented in Tables 6 and 7, below.

Table 6: Safety Criteria by Lawson (1975)
Classification Human Activities Annual Maximum Mean
Safety
(all weather areas)
Accessible by the general public 15 m/s
Safety
(fair weather areas)
Private outdoor areas such as
balconies, terraces etc
20 m/s

Table 7: Comfort Criteria by Lawson (1975)
Classification Human Activities
95 Percentile Maximum Mean
(once per week)
Business Walking Objective Walking from A to B 10 m/s > u > 8m/s
Pedestrian Walking Slow walking, etc. 8 m/s > u > 6 m/s
Short Exposure Activities Pedestrian Standing or sitting for
a short time
6 m/s > u > 4 m/s
Long Exposure Activities Pedestrian sitting for a long
duration
4 m/s > u

7.3 Melbournes Criteria for Peak Wind Speeds
Melbourne (1978) introduced a set of criteria for the assessment of environmental wind
conditions. These criteria were developed for temperatures in the range from 10
o
C to 30
o
C and
for people suitably dressed for outside temperature conditions. These criteria are based on peak
gust wind speeds. Melbournes criteria are outlined in Table 8 below. This set of criteria tends to
be more conservative than criteria suggested by other researchers such as those indicated in
Figure 7.

Table 8: Criteria by Melbourne (1978)
Classification Human Activities Annual Maximum Gust
Limit for safety Completely unacceptable: people likely to
get blown over.
u > 23m/s
Marginal Unacceptable as main public accessways. 23 m/s > u > 16 m/s
Comfortable Walking Acceptable for walking, main public
accessways
16 m/s > u > 13 m/s
Short Exposure Activities Generally acceptable for walking & short
duration stationary activities such as
window-shopping, standing or sitting in
plazas.
13 m/s > u > 10 m/s
Long Exposure Activities Generally acceptable for long duration
stationary activities such as in outdoor
restaurants & theatres and in parks.
10 m/s > u

7.4 Comparison of the Various Wind Speed Criteria
The criteria mentioned in Table 7, as well as other criteria, are compared on a probabilistic
basis in Figure 7, below.

Figure 7: Comparison of Various Mean and Gust Wind Environment Criteria, assuming
15% turbulence and a Gust Factor of 1.5 (after Melbourne, 1978)

However, full-scale observations by Rofail (2007) have shown that the criteria suggested by
Melbourne (1978) generally overstate the wind effects in a typical urban setting. This
discrepancy in the criteria by Melbourne is due to the assumption of a fixed 15% turbulence
intensity for all areas, which in our experience tends to be at the lower end of the range of
turbulence intensities. In the Rofail (2007) study it was found that in an urban setting the
range of the minimum turbulence intensity is typically in the range of 20% to 60%.
7.5 Wind Speed Criteria Used for This Study
For this study, the measured wind conditions for the various critical outdoor trafficable areas of
the subject development are compared against two sets of criteria. For comfort, the
aforementioned Davenport (1972) criteria are used in conjunction with a weekly maximum
Gust Equivalent Mean (GEM) wind speed (defined below). The safety limit criterion by
Melbourne (1972) of 23m/s for the annual maximum peak wind speeds is also used. Note that
the abovementioned Davenport (1972) criteria is used in conjunction with a Gust Equivalent
Mean (GEM) wind speed (defined below) as this has proven over time, and through field
observations, to be the most reliable indicator of pedestrian comfort. The most reliable source
of data for field observation results are obtained when undertaking remedial wind environment
studies. Note that the safety limit criterion by Melbourne (1978) of 23m/s for annual maximum
peak wind speeds is also applied to all areas. The basic criteria for a range of outdoor activities
are described as follows:
Long Exposure: 3.5m/s weekly maximum GEM wind speeds
Short Exposure: 5.5m/s weekly maximum GEM wind speeds
Comfortable Walking: 7.5m/s weekly maximum GEM wind speeds
Fast Walking: 10.0m/s weekly maximum GEM wind speeds
Safety Limit: 23.0m/s annual maximum gust wind speeds
Note that the criteria above for the weekly maximum GEM wind speeds are based on the
Davenport (1972) criteria, but converted for weekly wind speeds.
Notes:
The GEM is defined as the maximum of the following:
o Mean wind speed
o Gust wind speed divided by a gust factor of 1.85
The gust wind speed is defined as 3.5 standard deviations from the mean.
Long Exposure applies typically to outdoor dining areas, amphitheatres, etc.
Short Exposure applies typically to areas where short duration stationary activities are
involved (less than 1 hour). This includes window shopping and drop-off areas.

Comfortable Walking applies typically to areas used mainly for pedestrian
thoroughfares. This also includes private swimming pools and communal areas.
Fast walking applies typically to car parks, laneways, infrequently used public
pedestrian thoroughfares and parks, balconies, private terraces etc.
In all areas, the wind conditions are also checked against the safety limit.

8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For this study, a total of 41 study points were selected for detailed analysis. The locations of
the various study points tested for this study are shown in Figures 6a to 6g. It should be noted
that the initial tests of the development were undertaken without the effect of any form of wind
ameliorating devices such as balustrades or screens not shown in the architectural design. The
initial tests also ignored the effect of existing and/or proposed vegetation. For areas not
achieving appropriate wind conditions, retests were undertaken involving various forms of
ameliorative treatments that have been described in detail in the following section to achieve
satisfactory wind conditions and are shown in marked up figures.
It should be noted that two surrounds configurations were tested for the subject development.
The configurations include:
The existing subject site with existing surrounding buildings.
The proposed development with the existing surrounding buildings.
Note that the results of the study are based on the weekly maximum GEM wind speed criteria
and the annual maximum peak wind speed criteria, as outlined in Section 7.5 of this report.
Plots of results of the local directional wind speeds for the various test locations, as derived
from the wind tunnel tests, are presented in Appendix A (attached to this report).
8.1 Ground Level Trafficable Areas
8.1.1 The Study Points
Study Points 1 to 23 are used to monitor the Ground Level wind conditions along the various
trafficable areas for pedestrians within and around the site. These areas include pedestrian
thoroughfares, building entrances, as well as the pick-up/drop-off areas around the site. The
locations of these study points are also shown in Figure 6a.
8.1.2 Applicable Criteria
The majority of Ground Level areas of the site will be used as pedestrian areas, thus the
appropriate wind comfort criterion for this type of use is the comfortable walking criterion of
7.5m/s for the weekly maximum GEM wind speeds. However, the areas represented by Study
Points 4, 5, 10 and 23 may represent outdoor seating areas and hence the appropriate wind
condition for these areas is the short exposure criterion of 5.5m/s for the weekly maximum
GEM wind speeds. If the existing wind conditions around the site already exceed the
recommended comfortable walking criterion of 7.5m/s for the weekly maximum GEM wind
speeds, then wind conditions for this area with the inclusion of the proposed development
should not result in an exceedence of the existing wind speeds. Note that the safety limit
criterion of 23m/s for the annual maximum peak wind speeds should also be satisfied for all
Ground Level areas.

8.1.3 Results and Recommendations
The results of this indicate that Study Points 6 and 8 are adversely affected by winds from the
northerly, and westerly to southerly directions that exceed the comfortable walking criterion of
7.5m/s for the weekly maximum GEM wind speeds and the safety criterion of 23m/s for the
annual maximum peak wind speeds at these locations. Study Point 9 is exposed to winds from
the west-south-west to south directions that exceed the comfortable walking criterion of 7.5m/s
for the weekly maximum GEM wind speeds. In addition, Study Point 5 is exposed to winds from
the northerly direction, while Study Point 4 is exposed to winds from the southerly direction
that both exceed the short exposure criterion of 5.5m/s for the weekly maximum GEM wind
speeds. Study Point 23 is exposed to winds from the south-westerly direction that exceed the
short exposure criterion of 5.5m/s for the weekly maximum GEM wind speeds. Study Points 18
and 20 also exceed the comfortable walking criterion due to northerly winds. To ameliorate the
adverse winds at these locations, retests were undertaken with the inclusion of the existing
trees along Carrington Road, as well as the inclusion of 4m high densely foliating trees along
the southern and eastern edge of the site, as shown in Figure 8a. The results of the retests
show that with the inclusion of these densely foliating trees, the wind conditions are within the
appropriate criteria. With the inclusion of the proposed planting scheme, all Study Points
adjacent to those mentioned are also expected to satisfy the appropriate criteria.
The results of this study indicate that Study Point 16 is exposed to adverse winds from the
northerly direction, which exceeds the recommended comfortable walking criteria of 7.5m/s for
this location. However, when compared against wind tunnel results obtained for the existing
wind conditions, without the proposed development, it is evident that this northerly wind
effects is pre-existing and not a result of the subject development. The inclusion of the subject
development results in a reduction to the existing wind conditions.
Study Point 14, which represents the trafficable area along the western boundary of the site, is
adversely affected by the northerly winds. These wind conditions will marginally exceed the
comfortable walking criterion due to the northerly direction only. As this wind condition is
localised to one direction, and the area will not be used as a pedestrian thoroughfare, no
recommendations have been made to improve the wind conditions in this area.
All other Study Points are within the appropriate criteria and satisfy the safety limit criterion.
With the inclusion of the proposed planting scheme, all areas will be suitable for their intended
uses.
8.2 Levels 1, 3 and 5 Communal Terrace Areas
Study Points 24 to 30 are used to monitor the wind conditions on the various terraces located
on Levels 1, 3 and 5. The locations of these study points are also shown in Figures 6b to 6d.

All of the terrace areas will be used as short duration activities, thus the appropriate wind
comfort criterion for this type of use is the short-exposure criterion of 5.5m/s for the weekly
maximum GEM wind speeds. Note that the safety limit criterion of 23m/s for the annual
maximum peak wind speeds should also be satisfied for all areas.
The results of the study indicate that the measured wind conditions will meet the applicable
comfort and safety limit criterion without the need for any ameliorative treatments. Hence
these areas will be acceptable for their intended uses.
8.3 Critical Balcony Areas
Study Points 31 to 35 are used to monitor the wind conditions on the private balconies of Level
9, representing the lower level balconies. The locations of these study points are also shown in
Figure 6e.
Study Points 36 to 41 are used to monitor the wind conditions on the private balconies of
Levels 28 and 30, representing the upper level balconies. The locations of these study points
are also shown in Figures 6f and 6g.
The peak wind speed safety limit of 23m/s is the appropriate wind speed criterion to be used
for the private balcony areas of the development.
The results of the study indicate that the measured wind conditions will meet the applicable
comfort and safety limit criterion without the need for any ameliorative treatments. Hence
these areas will be acceptable for their intended uses.


Figure 8a: Proposed planting scheme for Ground Level areas


9 CONCLUSION
A detailed investigation has been undertaken into the wind environment impact of the
development located at 545 Station Street, Box Hill, as per architectural drawings by the
Buchan Group received April 5, 2013, as well as Revision D of the landscape drawings by
Rush/Wright Associates received March 19, 2013.
With the inclusion of the latest architectural and proposed landscape drawings, the results of
this study indicate that no treatments are required as the development will satisfy the required
pedestrian comfort criteria for all public and private outdoor spaces.
The following features are found to be important in ensuring that the outdoor trafficable areas
have acceptable wind conditions:
Planting of densely foliating evergreen trees, capable of growing to a height of 4m with
a 3m wide canopy, along Station Street and Carrington Road, as outlined in Revision D
of the landscape drawings.
Retain the existing trees along Carrington Road, as outlined in Revision D of the
landscape drawings.
Awnings extending from the eastern and southern Level 1 faade over the Ground
Level.
2m high impermeable screens along the eastern terrace areas of Level 3.
An awning extending from the Level 5 faade over the southern terrace of Level 3.
Bifolds along at least one edge of the north-west and south-west corner balconies on
Levels 30 to 33.

REFERENCES
Aynsley, R.M., Melbourne, W., Vickery, B.J., 1977, Architectural Aerodynamics, Applied
Science Publishers.
Davenport, A.G., 1972, An approach to human comfort criteria for environmental conditions,
Colloquium on Building Climatology, Stockholm.
Deaves, D. M. and Harris, R. I. 1978, A mathematical model of the structure of strong winds.
Construction Industry and Research Association (U.K), Report 76
International Organisation for Standardisation, ISO4354:2009(E), Wind Actions on
Structures.
Engineering Science Data Unit, 1982, London ESDU82026, with Amendments A to E (issued in
2002).
Engineering Science Data Unit, 1983, London ESDU83045, with Amendments A to C (issued in
2002).
Lawson, T.V., 1973, The wind environment of buildings: a logical approach to the
establishment of criteria, Bristol University, Department of Aeronautical Engineering.
Lawson, T.V., 1975, The determination of the wind environment of a building complex before
construction, Bristol University, Department of Aeronautical Engineering.
Melbourne, W.H., 1978, "Criteria for Environmental Wind Conditions", Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol.3, pp.241-249.
Melbourne, W.H., 1978, "Wind Environment Studies in Australia", Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol.3, pp.201-214.
Penwarden, A.D., and Wise A.F.E., 1975, "Wind Environment Around Buildings", Building
Research Establishment Report, London.
Ratcliff, M.A. and Peterka, J.A., 1990, Comparison of Pedestrian Wind Acceptability Criteria",
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol.36, pp.791-800.
Rofail, A.W., 2007, Comparison of Wind Environment Criteria against Field Observations, 12th
International Conference of Wind Engineering (Volume 2), Cairns, Australia.

8 April 2013

APPENDIX A - PLOTS OF THE WIND TUNNEL RESULTS

Annual Maximum Gust Wind Speeds (m/s)
Weekly Maximum Gust Equivalent Mean Wind Speeds (m/s)
Measured Wind Speeds at Point 01
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Long Exposure Criterion (3.5m/s)
Short Exposure Criterion (5.5m/s)
Comfortable Walking Criterion (7.5m/s)
Fast Walking Criterion (10m/s)
With the development as proposed, without
the inclusion of vegetation.
Retest 1 (Not Required)
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Limit of Safety Criterion (23m/s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW Long Exposure Criterion (3.5m/s)
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Proposed tree planting scheme
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW Limit of Safety Criterion (23m/s)
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
`
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
Existing case
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Existing case
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
8 April 2013

APPENDIX B - PLOTS OF THE WIND TUNNEL BOUNDARY LAYER PROFILES

Suburban Terrain Velocity and Turbulence Intensity Profile, 1:400 Scale
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
H
e
i
g
h
t

A
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
Measured Wind Tunnel
Turbulence Intensity
Measured Wind Tunnel
Velocity Profile (normalised)
Turbulence Intensity Profile
(from ISO/FDIS 4354:2008)
Normalised Velocity Profile
(from ISO/FDIS 4354:2008)
Turbulence Intensity Normalised Velocity Profile
Suburban Terrain Spectral Density Plot for 1:400 Scale at 100m
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Reduced Frequency, f/U
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
e
d

S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Output V-K to Length Scale Lu = 130m V-K to Fit our Data, Length Scale Lu = 380m
Hourly Mean Velocity Profile for the 0 Sector
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
Hourly Mean Terrain Roughness and Height Factor
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Standard Profile for Fully
Developed TC1.0 (ISO/FDIS-
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Profile at the Edge of the
Proximity Model
Reference Height
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Proximity Model
Reference Height
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Proximity Model
Reference Height
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Proximity Model
Reference Height
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Proximity Model
Reference Height
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Proximity Model
Reference Height
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Proximity Model
Reference Height
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Proximity Model
Reference Height
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Proximity Model
Reference Height
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Proximity Model
Reference Height
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

G
r
o
u
n
d

(
m
)
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
(k
tr,z,T=3600s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Proximity Model
Reference Height
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
4354:2008)
Proximity Model
Reference Height

545 Station ST Box Hill Wind Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

545 Station ST Box Hill Wind Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sydney (Head Office) Melbourne Singapore Abu Dhabi Mumbai Shanghai

is the 3-second gust velocity.

You might also like