1 

CHAPTER C29 WIND LOADS ON BUILDING APPURTENANCES AND OTHER

2  STRUCTURES: MAIN WIND FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM (DIRECTIONAL
3  PROCEDURE)

4  C29.3 DESIGN WIND LOADS: SOLID FREESTANDING WALLS AND SOLID SIGNS

5  C29.3.1 Solid Freestanding Walls and Solid Freestanding Signs. See Commentary, Section
6  C26.10.1.

LY
7  The Risk Category for rooftop equipment or appurtenances is required to be not less than that for

N
8  the building on which the equipment is located, nor that for any other facility to which the

O
9  equipment provides a necessary service. For example, if a solar array is located on the roof of a
10  hospital, the design wind load for the solar array is based on the Risk Category for the hospital,
11 
n
even if the solar array is not needed for the functioning of the hospital. In another example, if an
io
12  antenna provides critical communication service for a hospital and the antenna is located on top of
a parking structure separate from the hospital building, the design wind load for the antenna is
at
13 
14  based on the Risk Category for the hospital, which is greater than the Risk Category for the parking
m

15  structure.
or

16  Figure 29.3-1. The provisions in Figure 29.3-1 are based on the results of boundary-layer wind
nf

17  tunnel studies (Letchford 1985, 2001; Holmes 1986; Letchford and Holmes 1994; Ginger et al.
18  1998a, b; Letchford and Robertson 1999; Mehta et al. 2012).
rI

19  A surface curve fit to Letchford’s (2001) and Holmes’s (1986) area averaged mean net pressure
Fo

20  coefficient data (equivalent to mean force coefficients in this case) is given by the following
21  equation (Fox and Levitan 2005):

C f  {1.563  0.008542ln( x)  0.06148 y  0.009011[ln(x)]2

22 
0.2603y2  0.08393y[ln(x)]}/ 0.85

23  where x = B / s, and y = s / h.

1 
 
 1  The 0.85 term in the denominator modifies the wind tunnel-derived force coefficients into a format
2  where the gust-effect factor, as defined in Section 26.11, can be used.

3  Force coefficients for Cases A and B were generated from the preceding equation, then rounded
4  off to the nearest 0.05. That equation is only valid within the range of the B / s and s / h ratios
5  given in the figure for Cases A and B.

6  Of all the pertinent studies on single-faced signs, only Letchford (2001) specifically addressed
7  eccentricity (i.e., Case B). Letchford reported that his data provided a reasonable match to Cook’s

LY
8  (1990) recommendation for using an eccentricity of 0.25 times the average width of the sign.
9  However, the data were too limited in scope to justify changing the existing eccentricity value of

N
10  0.2 times the average width of the sign, which was also used in the 2011 Australian/New Zealand
11  Standard (Standards Australia 2011).

O
12  Mehta et al. (2012) tested a variety of aspect ratios B / s and clearance ratios s / h for double-faced
13  n
signs with all sides enclosed to address current industry practice. The study included both wind
io
14  tunnel testing and a full-scale field test to calibrate the wind tunnel models (Zuo et al. 2014, Smith
at
15  et al. 2014). These sign configurations exhibited an average reduction of 16% in mean force
16  coefficients, with a range of 9% to 22% compared to single-faced sign force coefficients given by
m

17  the equation above. These tests also showed that the eccentricity of 0.2 times the width of the
or

18  structure is overly conservative. Eccentricities reported in the study ranged from 0.039 to 0.105
19  times the width of the structure, with an average of 0.061. Testing by Giannoulis et al. (2012) and
nf

20  Meyer et al. (2017) supports the findings in Mehta et al. (2012).
rI

21  ASCE 7-22 clarifies that it is not needed to apply Case B to the design of freestanding walls or
Fo

22  signs with aspect ratio 𝐵/𝑠 2, as the required Case C already considers a torsional effect or an
23  eccentricity consistent with the aforementioned research findings (Mehta et al. 2012, Giannoulis
24  et al. 2012, Zuo et al. 2014, Smith et al. 2014, Meyer et al. 2017).

25  Case C was added to account for the higher pressures observed in both wind tunnel studies
26  (Letchford 1985, 2001; Holmes 1986; Letchford and Holmes 1994; Ginger et al. 1998a, b;
27  Letchford and Robertson 1999) and full-scale studies (Robertson et al. 1997) near the windward
28  edge of a freestanding wall or sign for oblique wind directions. Linear regression equations were
29  fit to the local mean net pressure coefficient data (for wind direction 45 degrees) from the

2 
 
 1  referenced wind tunnel studies to generate force coefficients for square regions starting at the
2  windward edge. Pressures near this edge increase significantly as the length of the structure
3  increases. No data were available on the spatial distribution of pressures for structures with low
4  aspect ratios ( B / s  2 ).

5  The sample illustration for Case C at the top of Figure 29.3-1 is for a sign with an aspect ratio
6  B / s  4 . For signs of differing B / s ratios, the number of regions is equal to the number of force
7  coefficient entries located below each B / s column heading.

LY
8  For oblique wind directions (Case C), increased force coefficients have been observed on above
9  ground signs compared to the same aspect ratio walls on ground (Letchford 1985, 2001; Ginger et

N
10  al. 1998a). The ratio of force coefficients between above ground and on-ground signs (i.e.,
11  s / h  0.8 and 1.0, respectively) is 1.25, which is the same ratio used in the Australian/New

O
12  Zealand Standard (Standards Australia 2002). Note 5 of Figure 29.3-1 provides for linear
13  interpolation between these two cases.
n
io
14  For walls and signs on the ground ( s / h  1 ), the mean vertical center of pressure ranged from
at
15  0.5h to 0.6h (Holmes 1986, Letchford 1989, Letchford and Holmes 1994, Robertson et al. 1995,
1996, Ginger et al. 1998a); 0.55h was the average value. For above ground walls and signs, the
m

16 
17  geometric center best represents the expected vertical center of pressure.
or

18  The reduction in Cf caused by porosity (Note 2) follows a recommendation (Letchford 2001).
nf

19  Both wind tunnel and full-scale data have shown that return corners significantly reduce the net
rI

20  pressures in the region near the windward edge of the wall or sign (Letchford and Robertson 1999).
Fo

21  C29.3.2 Solid Attached Signs

22  Signs attached to walls and subject to the geometric limitations of Section 29.3.2 should experience
23  wind pressures approximately equal to the external pressures on the wall to which they are
24  attached. The dimension requirements for signs supported by frameworks, where there is a small
25  gap between the sign and the wall, are based on the collective judgment of the committee.

26  C29.4 DESIGN WIND LOADS: OTHER STRUCTURES

3 
 
 1  Guidance for determining G , Cf , and Af for structures found in petrochemical and other

2  industrial facilities that are not otherwise addressed in ASCE 7 can be found in Wind Loads for
3  Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities (ASCE Task Committee on Wind-Induced Forces
4  2011).

5  Figures 29.4-1, 29.4-2, and 29.4-3. With the exception of Figure 29.4-3, the pressure and force
6  coefficient values in these tables are unchanged from ANSI A58.1-1972 (ANSI 1972). The
7  coefficients specified in these tables are based on wind tunnel tests conducted under conditions of
8  uniform flow and low turbulence, and their validity in turbulent boundary-layer flows has yet to

LY
9  be completely established. Additional pressure coefficients for conditions not specified herein may
10  be found in two references (SIA 1956, ASCE 1961).

N
O
11  With regard to Figure 29.4-3, the force coefficients are a refinement of the coefficients specified
12  in ANSI A58.1-1982 (1982) and in ASCE 7-93 (1994). The force coefficients specified are offered
13 
n
as a simplified procedure that may be used for trussed towers and are consistent with force
io
14  coefficients given in TIA (1991) and force coefficients recommended by Working Group No. 4
(IASS 1981).
at
15 

It is not the intent of this standard to exclude the use of other recognized literature for the design
m

16 
17  of special structures, such as transmission and telecommunications towers. Recommendations for
or

18  wind loads on tower guys are not provided as in previous editions of the standard. Recognized
nf

19  literature should be referenced for the design of these special structures, as is noted in Section
20  29.1.3. For the design of flagpoles, see NAAMM (2007). For the design of structural supports for
rI

21  highway signs, luminaires, and traffic signals, see AASHTO LTS-6 (AASHTO 2013).
Fo

22  Lighting pole systems have unique design and performance related characteristics. ASCE 72
23  provides wind design factors for lighting poles; including the gust effect factors, drag coefficients
24  and projected areas, which are not specifically provided in ASCE 7. The values for Gf and Cf were
25  calibrated assuming a flexible structure, either directly embedded or mounted to concrete
26  foundation with anchor rods, with properties for steel related to damping, modulus of elasticity
27  and exterior material surface roughness. Af,, as defined by ASCE 7, is consistent with Aa and As,
28  as defined by ASCE 72. Cf, as defined by ASCE 7, is consistent with Ca, Cd, Cdm and Cdr, as
29  defined by ASCE 72. Cross-wind response should also be considered as part of the design.

4 
 
 1  C29.4.1 Rooftop Structures and Equipment for Buildings

2  Wind loads on rooftop structures and equipment are revised in ASCE 7-16 to use Equations (29.4-
3  2) and (29.4-3) for buildings of all heights. The change provides an improved representation of the
4  limited amount of research that is available (Hosoya et al. 2001, Kopp and Traczuk 2007). The
5  change also eliminates inconsistencies between equipment on roofs below versus slightly above
6  the 60 ft (18.3 m) height. The research in Hosoya et al. (2001) only treated one value of Af (

7  0.04 Bh ). The research in Kopp and Traczuk (2008) treated values of A f  0 .0 2 B h and 0.03Bh ,

LY
8  and values of Ar  0.0067BL . Because GCr is expected to approach 1.0 as Af or Ar approaches
9  that of the building ( B h or BL ), a linear interpolation is included as a way to avoid a step

N
10  function in load if the designer wants to treat other sizes. However, the loads provided by these

O
11  provisions are best suited for units that are much smaller than the building, A f  0 .0 5 B h and

Ar  0.01BL . The resulting loads are expected to be overly conservative if applied to linelike
12 
n
io
13  structures that extend more than 0.1B or 0.1L across the roof.
at
14  Both research studies showed high uplift forces on the rooftop equipment. Hence, uplift loads are
addressed in Section 29.4.1.
m

15 
or

16  Mechanical equipment screens are commonly used to conceal plumbing, electrical, or mechanical
17  equipment from view and are defined as rooftop structures not covered by a roof and located away
nf

18  from the edge of the building roof, such that they are not considered parapets. Many configurations
rI

19  and types of screens are available ranging from solid walls to porous panels, which allow some air
20  to flow through. Though the use of equipment screens is prevalent, little research is available to
Fo

21  provide guidance for determining wind loads on screen walls and equipment behind screens.
22  Accordingly, rooftop screens, equipment behind screens, and their supports and attachments to
23  buildings, should be designed for the full wind load determined in accordance with Section 29.4.1.
24  Where substantiating data have been obtained using the Wind Tunnel Procedure (Chapter 31),
25  design professionals may consider wind load reductions in the design of rooftop screens and
26  equipment. For example, studies by Zuo et al. (2011) and Erwin et al. (2011) suggested that wind
27  loads on some types of screen materials and equipment behind screens may be overestimated by
28  the equations defined in Section 29.4.

5 
 
 1  The design wind forces for ground-mounted tanks or similar structures (smooth surface such as
2  concrete or steel) with the aspect ratios H / D (height to diameter) in the range of 0.25 to 4
3  inclusive shall be determined in accordance with Section 29.4.2.

4  C29.4.2 Design Wind Loads: Circular Bins, Silos, and Tanks with h  120 ft ( h  36.5 m ),
5  D  1 2 0 ft ( D  36.5 m ), and 0.25  H / D  4

6  Section 29.4 contains the provisions for determining wind loads on silo and tank walls and roofs.
7  The provisions are largely based on Standards Australia (2011) and the wind tunnel tests of low-

LY
8  rise cylindrical structures carried out at high Reynolds numbers ( Re  1.0  10 5 ) by Sabransky and
9  Melbourne (1987) and Macdonald et al. (1988, 1990). Significant increases in drag forces of

N
10  grouped silos were found in the wind tunnel tests, so the provisions of grouped tanks and silos are

O
11  specified in this section.

12 
n
C29.4.2.1 External Walls of Isolated Circular Bins, Silos, and Tanks
io
13  This section specifies the force coefficient, , for the walls of circular bins, silos, and tanks. The
at
Cf

14  force coefficient is adopted from Standards Australia (2011). Note that the force coefficient of
m

15  0.63 obtained from an integration of the equations in AS/NZS 1170.2 (Standards Australia 2002)
or

16  is close to the value of smooth surface type from Figure 29.4-1. Although the value of Cf from
17  AS/NZS represents an average value similar to that used in the industry tank standards, it
nf

18  sometimes underestimates the value of Cf (rougher tank shells such as caused by ornamental
rI

19  pilasters or fluted supports of certain types of elevated water tanks) and sometimes overestimates
20  the value of Cf (low h/D ratios). Item c was added to prevent use of Cf = 0.63 on rougher tank
Fo

21  shells. This provision does not prohibit the determination of the force coefficient (Cf) from Figure
22  29.4-1.

23  C29.4.2.2 Roofs of Isolated Circular Bins, Silos, and Tanks

24  This section specifies the external pressure coefficients, Cp, for the roofs of circular bins, silos,

25  and tanks. Two conditions are covered, as shown in Figure 29.4-5: roofs that have the roof angle
26    10  , and roofs that have 10    30 . The results of   10  roofs are based on

6 
 
 1  comparisons of domed roofs and flat roofs from Chapter 27 of ASCE 7-10 for maximum uplift
2  conditions. The results of 10    30 roofs are consistent with data from Sabransky and
3  Melbourne (1987) and Macdonald et al. (1988). According to the wind tunnel tests, only suctions
4  are observed for the roofs defined.

5  C29.4.2.3 Undersides of Isolated Elevated Circular Bins, Silos, and Tanks

6  This section specifies the external pressure coefficients, Cp, for the underneath sides of circular

7  bins, silos, and tanks. The external pressure coefficients, C p , are adopted from Standards Australia

LY
8  (2011).

N
9  For calculating gust-effect factor G , structural period, T , should be based on the analysis of the

O
10  whole structure: tank and support structure.

11 
n
C29.4.2.4 Roofs and Walls of Grouped Circular Bins, Silos, and Tanks
io
12  For grouped silos, C p and C f values for roofs and walls are largely based on Standards Australia
at

13  (2011) and wind tunnel tests by Sabransky and Melbourne (1987) and Macdonald et al. (1990).
m

14  Test results of an in-line group of three silos with a clear spacing of 0.25D between the nearest
15  adjacent walls (1.25D center-to-center), by Sabransky and Melbourne (1987), indicated that the
or

16  drag coefficient for the central cylinder in the group increased by approximately 65% relative to
nf

17  that of the isolated cylinder. Pressure coefficients over the entire roof were significantly larger in
magnitude than the corresponding pressure coefficients on the isolated model. It was concluded
rI

18 
19  that a clear spacing of 0.25D produced the maximum interference between two finite cylinders.
Fo

20  C29.4.3 Rooftop Solar Panels for Buildings of All Heights with Flat Roofs or Gable or Hip
21  Roofs with Slopes Less Than 7 degrees

22  Section 29.4.3 addresses low-profile solar panels on low-slope roofs. Requirements specific to this
23  type of solar array are provided because such systems (a) are in widespread use and (b) have been
24  subject to wind tunnel testing that provides guidance on appropriate design wind loads. Figure
25  29.4-7 intentionally has a limited range of application, with the maximum height above the roof

7 
 
 1  surface, h2 , for the solar panels limited to 4 ft (1.2 m) and the panel chord length, Lp , limited to

2  6.7 ft (2.0 m). Wind tunnel data (e.g., Kopp 2013) show that increasing the overall height above
3  the roof or panel chord length increases the wind loads. Likewise, the height of the gap between

4  the panels and the roof surface h1 is limited to 2 ft (0.61 m); otherwise, the wind flow under the
5  panels can cause uplift exceeding that covered in the figure. The requirements are not applicable
6  to open structures because the applicable test data are from enclosed structures, which have
7  different aerodynamics than open structures. The roof zones shown in Figure 29.4-7 are larger than
those for the roof loads, as explained by Banks (2012) and Kopp (2013). Buildings with

LY
8 
9  nonrectangular plans, such as that sketched in Figure C29.4-1, adapted from SEAOC (2012), can
10  be used for guidance in applying the requirements. Reentrant corners do not create a Zone 3

N
11  because cornering vortices only form at outward or protruded corners. Similarly, outward corners

O
12  at angles greater than 90 degrees tend to weaken the vortices; as this angle becomes more obtuse,
13  the building corner begins to flatten out and resemble more of an edge condition.
n
io
at
m
or
nf
rI

14 
Fo

15  FIGURE C29.4-1. Sketch of Building with Irregular Plan Dimensions for Use with Wind
16  Loads on Roof-Mounted Solar Panels.

17  Note: h= height of building, in ft (m); WL = width of a building on its longest side, in ft (m); WS =
18  width of a building on its shortest side, in ft (m)

19  The nominal net pressure coefficient, (GCrn )nom , curves are derived from wind tunnel test data
20  within the range of parameters allowed by Figure 29.4-7. These curves are created based on a

8 
 
 1  methodology consistent with that used for the ASCE 7 components and cladding (C&C) loads.

2  The net pressure coefficients shown in the design curves of the figure are denoted (GCrn )nom ,
3  because these values need to be adjusted for array edge conditions, parapet size, and solar panel
4  length.

5  The wind tunnel data indicate that the (GCrn )nom values are not linearly related to the panel tilt
6  angle over the full tilt angle range. The data indicate that there is a relatively small change in

7  (GCrn )nom values for the lower tilt panels in the 1-to 5-degree range. Then, there is a rapid increase

LY
8  in (GCrn )nom values from 5 to 15-degree. Again, there is a relatively small change in (GCrn )nom

N
9  values for higher tilt panels in the 15- to 35-degree range because, for the higher tilt angles,
10  upstream panels create turbulence, which increases the wind loads on all downstream panels (e.g.,

O
11  Kopp et al. 2012, Kopp 2013). Thus, the figure was created with two (GCrn )nom curves to address

12  this phenomenon: a n

(GCrn )nom curve for low-tilt panels in the 0- to 5-degree range and another for
io
13  high-tilt panels in the 15- to 35-degree range. For panel tilt angles in the 5- to 15-degree range,
at

14  linear interpolation is permitted.

m

15  (GCrn )nom values are for both positive and negative values. Wind tunnel test data show similar
or

16  positive and negative pressures for solar panels (which are very different to typical roof member
design wind loads).
nf

17 
rI

18  Parapets typically worsen the wind loads on solar panels, particularly on wider buildings. The
19  parapets lift the vortices higher above the roof surface and push them closer together, inward from
Fo

20  the edges. It is not entirely clear why the vortex effects are more severe in this situation, but tests
21  show that this can result in wind loads that are significantly greater than in the absence of a parapet,
22  particularly for unshrouded tilted panels. The parapet height factor, γp , accounts for this effect.

23  Solar panels are typically installed in large arrays with closely spaced rows, and the end rows and
24  panels experience larger wind pressures than interior panels, which are sheltered by adjacent
25  panels. To account for the higher loading at the end rows and panels, an array edge increase factor

9 
 
 1  is applied, taken from SEAOC (2012). However, single rows of solar panels can be determined
2  using this section, taking into account that all solar panels are defined as being exposed.

3  Rooftop equipment and structures, such as HVAC units, screens, or penthouses, can provide some
4  sheltering benefits to solar arrays located directly downwind of the object; conversely, however,
5  the regions around the edges of such structures can have accelerated wind flow under varied wind
6  directions. Accordingly, the edge increase factor ignores such structures and is calculated based
7  on the distance to the building edge or adjacent array, neglecting any intervening rooftop
8  structures. This results in the panels adjacent to rooftop objects being designed for higher wind

LY
9  loads to account for the accelerated wind flow.

N
10  The requirements can be used for arrays in any plan orientation relative to building axes or edges;
d1 and d2 are measured parallel to the principal axes of the array being

O
11  the dimensions,

12  considered. The requirement, in Figure 29.4-7, for array panels to be set back from the roof edge
13 
n
is meant to ensure that the panels are out of the high-speed wind in the separated shear layers at
io
14  the edge. If the array is made up of a single row of solar panels, or a single panel, then d2 is
at

15  undefined and γE  1.5 .

m

16  Wind tunnel studies have shown that the wind loads on rooftop solar panels need not be applied
or

17  simultaneously to the roof C&C wind loads for portions of the roof that are covered by the panel.
Where a portion of the span of a roof member is covered by a solar array and the remainder is not
nf

18 
19  covered, then the roof member should be designed with the solar array wind load on the covered
rI

20  portion, with simultaneous application of roof C&C load on the uncovered portion. In a separate
Fo

21  load case, the member should also be checked for C&C wind loads, assuming that the photovoltaic
22  panels are not present. For installations of new panels on existing buildings, this separate load case,
23  to check the capacity of the existing roof structure to resist the roof C&C wind loads applied over
24  the entire roof area (i.e., assuming that the solar panels are not present), is not required.

25  The wind loads here were obtained for solar arrays without aerodynamic treatments, such as
26  shrouds or deflectors. Uplifting wind load for arrays with shrouding may be lower, but because of
27  the range of possible results and sensitivity to design details, such arrays would need to be wind

10 
 
 1  tunnel tested in order to use reduced loads from those specified here. It should also be noted that
2  horizontal (drag) loads could increase with the use of shrouds or deflectors.

3  Procedure for Using Figure 29.4-7 To simplify the use of the figure, the following is a step-by-
4  step procedure:

5  Step 1: Confirm applicability of the figure to the solar installation and building.

6  Step 2: For panels with ω  2  and h2 10 in. (254 mm), the procedure using d2 Section,
29.4.4, per Note 4, may be used.

LY
7 

8  Step 3: Confirm that layout provides minimum distance from roof edge, per Note 5.

N
9  Step 4: Determine roof zones.

O
10  Step 5: Determine effective wind area and normalized wind area for each element being
11  evaluated.
n
io
12  Step 6: Compute (GCrn )nom from applicable chart, using linear interpolation for values of
at

13  ω between 5 and 15 degree.

m

14  Step 7: Apply chord length adjustment factor, γc .

or

d2 , γE , if necessary.
nf

15  Step 8: Apply the Edge Factor

rI

16  Step 9: Apply parapet height factor, γ p .

Fo

17  Step 10: Calculate (GCrn ) .

18  Step 11: Calculate pressure, p , using Equation (29.4-5).

19  C29.4.4 Rooftop Solar Panels Parallel to the Roof Surface on Buildings of All Heights and
20  Roof Slopes

21  Wind loads of roof-mounted, planar solar panels that are close to and parallel to the roof surface
22  tend to be lower than the loads on a bare roof because of pressure equalization (Kopp et al. 2012

11 
 
 1  Kopp 2013), except on the perimeter of the array. The solar array pressure equalization factor, γa
2  , accounts for this reduction, based, in particular, on data from Stenabaugh et al. (2015). For
3  pressure equalization to occur, the panels cannot be too large; there needs to be a minimum gap
4  between the panels, and the height above the roof surface cannot be too large. The requirements
5  in ASCE 7-16 were based on panel sizes up to 6.7 ft (2.0 m) long for maximum heights above the
6  roof surface that are less than 10 in. (254 mm) and a minimum gap around the panels of 0.25 in.
7  (6.35 mm). Larger gaps and lower heights above the roof surface could further decrease the wind
8  loads and this is quantified by the changes in Figure 29.4-8. For metal roof panels, the maximum

LY
9  distance above the roof surface is measured from the flat portion of the panels, rather than from
10  the top of the roof panel ribs. The value of γ a , between 10 ft2 and 100 ft2 for the solid line is 1.2

N
11  (0.4* log10A). The value of ɣa, between the effective wind area of 10 ft2 and 100 ft2 for the dashed

O
12  line is 0.8 (0.2*log10A).

13  Panels around the edge of the

n
array may experience higher wind loads.
io
14  Bilinear interpolation of the air equalization factor may be done as follows:
at
15  1. Interpolate based on the gap width between panels.
2. Interpolate based on h2.
m

16 
17  3. Average both values.
or

18  More substantiation is contained in Sections 5.2.3, 5.3.3, and 5.3.5 of the report “Wind Design for
nf

19  Solar Arrays,” SEAOC PV2-2017, by the SEAOC Solar Photovoltaic Systems Committee, July
rI

20  2017, and the report, “Wind Loads on Photovoltaic Arrays Mounted Parallel to Sloped Roofs on
21  Low-Rise Buildings” (Stenabaugh et al., 2015) provides further commentary on why these
Fo

22  changes are appropriate for this proposal. 

23  C29.4.5 Ground-Mounted Fixed-Tilt Solar Panel Systems

24  The requirements in Section 29.4.5 are primarily based on wind tunnel data presented in Browne
25  et al. (2020) and augmented by other proprietary wind tunnel tests. The coefficients enveloped
26  the available data for a wide range of geometric parameters (e.g., tilt angle, row spacing, chord
27  length, and ground clearance) and, thus, are typically expected to be conservative. All wind tunnel

12 
 
 1  tests were based on solid flat plates, and thus, gaps between modules must be limited to ensure the
2  surface is nominally solid.

3  The design forces and moments derived using the combined static and dynamic wind load
4  coefficients in this section are appropriate for fixed-tilt ground-mounted systems meeting the
5  geometric requirements of Section 29.4.5.1, and assuming the wind-induced deflections are small,
6  and thus, the system is not flexible. Flexible structures, such as unrestrained single-axis trackers,
7  are prone to aeroelastic effects and torsional instabilities, as discussed in Taylor and Browne
8  (2020), which must be considered in the design of such systems.

LY
9  In addition to the provisions in Section 29.4.5, the Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS C 8955:2017)

N
10  provides approximate formulae to obtain uniform positive and negative pressures on ground-
11  mounted PV arrays for tilt angles ranging from 5 to 60 degrees, which may be multiplied by 0.6

O
12  for the central parts of arrays. Currently, there are no other codes/standards or other publications
in the public domain that include provisions for ground-mounted solar arrays. For variables or
13 
n
io
14  configurations that are outside the scope of these requirements, testing in accordance with Chapter
15  31 and ASCE 49 may be considered.
at

16  A building or other structure is defined as “rigid” in Chapter 26 when the fundamental frequency
m

17  is greater than or equal to 1 Hz. This definition applies to structures with large characteristic
or

18  dimensions, which is not appropriate for small structures, such as ground-mounted solar
19  photovoltaic (PV) systems. For these types of structures, the inertial wind force associated with
nf

20  modes of vibration with frequencies much larger than 1 Hz can be substantial. The study (Strobel
rI

21  and Banks 2014), on the wind loading due to potential resonance with vortex shedding from the
22  panels, highlighted the need to consider wind loading on arrays beyond the typical limit of 1 Hz
Fo

23  used for structures exposed to wind. Moreover, this study clearly implies that the gust effect factor
24  (G) in Section 26.11 or equivalent factors in any other current code/standard does not address the
25  potential wake effect resonance caused by upwind rows within a multi-row solar array close to the
26  ground. This sentiment is echoed in Section 8.2 of SEAOC PV2 (2017). For this reason, dynamic
27  net pressure and moment coefficients have been provided in Figure 29.4-11 for a wide range of
28  reduced frequencies. For stiffer structures with reduced frequencies greater than 0.8, the dynamic
29  coefficients from a reduced frequency of 0.8 may be conservatively used.

13 
 
 1  The dynamic coefficients represent an allowance for the resonant loading, while the static
2  coefficients include both the mean and background loading components. The mean loading is the
3  time-averaged component, the background loading is caused by fluctuating wind gusts or
4  turbulence acting on the structure, whereas the resonant or inertial component is caused by the
5  structure’s inertia as it moves in its fundamental modes of vibration. The background and resonant
6  parts together make up the dynamic response of a structure to wind. It should be noted that the
7  maximum total design forces and moments are well predicted using the combined static and
8  dynamic wind load coefficients in this section. The dynamic component has been determined by

LY
9  subtracting the sum of the mean and background components from the total component, which has
10  been obtained by summing the mean and the square root of the sum of squares of the background

N
11  and resonant components, as shown in Browne et al. (2020) and is similar to Equation C26.11-22.
12  Consequently, the dynamic component is a mixture of the effects of resonant and background by

O
13  turbulence and is numerically smaller than the actual resonant dynamic component. Upward
14 
n
corrections to the dynamic load are necessary in order to determine the resonant component alone.
io
15  This underestimate becomes significant when the resonant and background dynamic components
16  are of comparable magnitude. In such cases, a correction factor up to 1.5 may be applied to the
at

17  provided dynamic coefficients, should estimates of the full resonant component be required. The
m

18  dynamic coefficients are also based on the conservative assumption that the mode shapes equal
unity at all locations, which does not consider structural details, such as constraints at the support
or

19 
20  system. A more comprehensive dynamic analysis for a specific structure will likely result in lower
nf

21  dynamic wind loads compared to those obtained from the provisions in Section 29.4.5.
rI

22  The dynamic coefficients in Figure 29.4-11 have been provided for a damping ratio of β = 0.01
and an approximate adjustment for higher values of damping (up to a maximum value of 0.05) is
Fo

23 
24  provided in Note 1 of the same figure. This adjustment is physically correct for the resonant
25  component alone, but is an approximation when applied to the provided dynamic coefficients,
26  which also include the effect of the background turbulence. The error in the peak total wind load,
27  which can result from the use of this extrapolation, is expected to be in the range of ±5% for typical
28  values of background and resonant loading.

29  To select the appropriate dynamic wind load coefficients from Figure 29.4-11, knowledge of the
30  lowest natural frequency and structural damping in the primary vibration modes of the system is

14 
 
 1  essential. A practical approach to obtain these dynamic properties for ground-mounted fixed-tilt
2  solar panel systems is to conduct field measurements on representative full-scale systems. As
3  discussed in Section C26.11, most computer codes used in the analysis of structures would provide
4  estimates of the natural frequencies of the structure being analyzed. General guidance on damping
5  ratios for various types of structures is also provided in Section C26.11. The damping ratio used
6  in Figure 29.4-11 should be the structural damping, rather than the total damping including
7  aerodynamic damping. Aerodynamic damping may be experienced by a structure oscillating in
8  air. The aerodynamic damping can be positive, adding to the structural damping, or negative,

LY
9  which can lead to unstable oscillations.

10  The wind forces and moments, derived using the combined static and dynamic wind load

N
11  coefficients in this section, are appropriate for fixed-tilt ground-mounted systems meeting the

O
12  requirements in Section 29.4.5 and assuming the wind-induced deflections are small, and thus, the
13  system is not flexible. Flexible structures, such as unrestrained single-axis trackers, are prone to
14  n
aeroelastic effects and torsional instabilities as discussed in Taylor and Browne (2020), which must
io
15  be considered in the design of such systems.
at

16  C29.4.5.1 Scope. The simulated scaled PV models used in the wind tunnel research were installed
m

17  on a flat surface in the wind tunnel. For locations such as Hawaii, where the topographic effects
18  are considered in the basic wind speed map and Kzt is assumed to be 1.0, the Kzt should be
or

19  calculated in accordance with Equation 26.8-1. Where Kzt exceeds 1.0 based on Equation 26.8-1,
nf

20  Zone 1 should be designed as Zone 2.

rI

21  C29.5 PARAPETS

Fo

22  Before the 2002 edition of ASCE 7, no provisions for the design of parapets were included because
23  of the lack of direct research. In the 2002 edition of ASCE 7, a rational method was added based
24  on the committee’s collective experience, intuition, and judgment. In the 2005 edition, the parapet
25  provisions were updated as a result of research performed at the University of Western Ontario
26  (Mans et al. 2000, 2001) and at Concordia University (Stathopoulos et al. 2002a, b).

27  Wind pressures on a parapet are a combination of wall and roof pressures, depending on the
28  location of the parapet and the direction of the wind (Figure C29.5-1). A windward parapet

15 
 
 1  experiences the positive wall pressure on its front surface (exterior side of the building) and the
2  negative roof edge zone pressure on its back surface (roof side). This behavior is based on the
3  concept that the zone of suction caused by the wind stream separation at the roof eave moves up
4  to the top of the parapet when one is present. Thus, the same suction that acts on the roof edge also
5  acts on the back of the parapet.

LY
N
O
n
io
at
m
or

6 
nf

7  FIGURE C29.5-1. Design Wind Pressures on Parapets

rI

8  The leeward parapet experiences a positive wall pressure on its back surface (roof side) and a
Fo

9  negative wall pressure on its front surface (exterior side of the building). There should be no
10  reduction in the positive wall pressure to the leeward parapet caused by shielding by the windward
11  parapet because, typically, they are too far apart to experience this effect. Because all parapets
12  would be designed for all wind directions, each parapet would in turn be the windward and leeward
13  parapet and, therefore, must be designed for both sets of pressures.

14  For the design of the main wind force resisting system (MWFRS), the pressures used describe the
15  contribution of the parapet to the overall wind loads on that system. For simplicity, the front and
16  back pressures on the parapet have been combined into one coefficient for MWFRS design.

16 
 
 1  Typically, the designer should not need the separate front and back pressures for MWFRS design.
2  The internal pressures inside the parapet cancel out in the determination of the combined
3  coefficient. The summation of these external and internal, front and back pressure coefficients is
4  a new term ( G C p n ), the combined net pressure coefficient for a parapet.

5  For the design of the components and cladding (C&C), a similar approach was used. However, it
6  is not possible to simplify the coefficients because of the increased complexity of the C&C
7  pressure coefficients. In addition, the front and back pressures are not combined because the
8  designer may be designing separate elements on each face of the parapet. The internal pressure is

LY
9  required to determine the net pressures on the windward and leeward surfaces of the parapet. The
10  provisions guide the designer to the correct ( G C p ) and velocity pressure to use for each surface, as

N
11  illustrated in Figure C29.5-1.

O
12  Interior walls that protrude through the roof, such as party walls and fire walls, should be designed
13  as windward parapets for both MWFRS and C&C. n
io
14  The internal pressure that may be present inside a parapet is highly dependent on the porosity of
at

15  the parapet envelope. In other words, it depends on the likelihood of the wall surface materials to
m

16  leak air pressure into the internal cavities of the parapet. For solid parapets, such as concrete or
17  masonry, the internal pressure is zero because there is no internal cavity. Certain wall materials
or

18  may be impervious to air leakage, and, as such, have little or no internal pressure or suction, so
nf

19  using the value of ( G C p i ) for an enclosed building may be appropriate. However, certain materials
rI

20  and systems used to construct parapets containing cavities are more porous, thus justifying the use
21  of the ( G C p i ) values for partially enclosed buildings or higher. Another factor in the internal
Fo

22  pressure determination is whether the parapet cavity connects to the internal space of the building,
23  allowing the building’s internal pressure to propagate into the parapet. Selection of the appropriate
24  internal pressure coefficient is left to the judgment of the design professional.

25  C29.7 MINIMUM DESIGN WIND LOADING

17 
 
 1  This section specifies a minimum wind load to be applied horizontally on the entire vertical
2  projection of the other structures, as shown in Figure C27.1-1. This load case is to be applied as a
3  separate load case in addition to the normal load cases specified in other portions of this chapter.

4 

5 

6 

LY
7  REFERENCES

8 

N
O
9  AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2013.
10  “Standard specifications for structural supports for highway signs, luminaires, and traffic signals,”
11  6th ed. AASHTO LTS-6, Washington, DC: AASHTO.
n
io
12  ANSI (American National Standards Institute). 1972. Minimum design loads for buildings and
at

13  other structures, ANSI A58.1-1972, Washington, DC: ANSI.

m

14  ANSI. 1982. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ANSI A58.1-1982,
or

15  Washington, DC: ANSI.

nf

16  ASCE. 1961. “Wind forces on structures.” Trans. ASCE, 126(2), 1124–1198.
rI

17  ASCE. 1994. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, New York: ASCE.
Fo

18  ASCE Task Committee on Wind-Induced Forces. 2011. Wind loads for petrochemical and other
19  industrial facilities, Reston, VA: ASCE.

20  Banks, D. 2012. “Wind loads on tilted flat panels on commercial roofs: The effects of corner
21  vortices.” Advances in hurricane engineering, C.P. Jones, and L.G. Griffis, eds. ASCE, Reston,
22  VA: ASCE.

18 
 
 1  Browne, M.T.L., Taylor, Z. J., Li, S.H., Gamble, S. 2020 A Wind Load Design Method for
2  Ground-Mounted Multi-Row Solar Arrays Based on a Compilation of Wind Tunnel Experiments,
3  Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 205, 104294.

4  Cook, N. J. 1990. The designer’s guide to wind loading of building structures, Part II.
5  Butterworths, London: Butterworths.

6  Erwin, J. W., Chowdhury, A. G., and Bitsuamlak, G. 2011. “Wind loads on rooftop equipment
7  mounted on a flat roof.” J. Wind Eng. 8(1), 23–42.

LY
8  Fox, T., and Levitan, M. 2005. “A comprehensive look at wind loading on freestanding walls and
9  signs. In Proc., 10th Americas Conf. on Wind Eng., Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

N
10  Giannoulis, A., Stathopoulos, T., Briassoulis, D., and Mistriotis, A. 2012. “Wind loading on

O
11  vertical panels with different permeabilities.” J. Wind Eng. Industr. Aerodyn. 107, 1–16.

12  n
Ginger, J. D., Reardon, G. F., and Langtree, B. A. 1998a. “Wind loads on fences and hoardings.”
io
13  In Proc., Australasian Struct. Eng. Conf., Engineers Australia Structural College, Barton,
at
14  Australian Capital Territory, AU, 983–990.
m

15  Ginger, J. D., Reardon, G. F., and Langtree, B. L. 1998b. Wind loads on fences and hoardings.
16  Townsville, Queensland, AU: Cyclone Structural Testing Station, James Cook University.
or

17  Holmes, J. D. 1986. “Wind tunnel tests on free-standing walls at CSIRO.” Internal report 86/47,
nf

18  Clayton, South Victoria, AU: CSIRO Division of Building Research.

rI

19  Hosoya, N., Cermak, J. E., and Steele, C. 2001. “A wind-tunnel study of a cubic rooftop AC unit
Fo

20  on a low building.” In Proc., Americas Conf. on Wind Eng. Fort Collins, Colorado: American
21  Association for Wind Engineering.

22  IASS, Working Group No. 4. 1981. Recommendations for guyed masts. Madrid: International
23  Association for Shell and Spatial Structures.

24  JIS (Japanese Standards Association) . 2017 Load design uide on structures for photovoltaic array,
25  C 8955. Tokyo: JIS..

19 
 
 1  Kopp, G. A. 2013. “Wind loads on low profile, tilted, solar arrays placed on large, flat, low-rise
2  building roofs.” J. Struct. Eng., doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000821.

3  Kopp, G. A., Farquhar, S., and Morrison, M. J. 2012. “Aerodynamic mechanisms for wind loads
4  on tilted, roof-mounted, solar arrays.” J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 111, 40–52.

5  Kopp, G. A., and Traczuk, G. 2007. “Wind loads on a roof-mounted cube.” BLWT-SS47_2007.
6  London, ON: The Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory.

7  Letchford, C. W. 1985. “Wind loads on free-standing walls.” Report OUEL 1599/85, Oxford, UK:

LY
8  Dept. of Engineering Science, University of Oxford,

Letchford, C. W. 1989. “Wind loads and overturning moments on free standing walls.” In Proc.,

N
9 
10  2nd Asia Pacific Symp. on Wind Eng. Kanagawa, Japan: International Association for Wind

O
11  Engineering.

12  n
Letchford, C. W. 2001. “Wind loads on rectangular signboards and hoardings.” J. Wind Eng.
io
13  Indust. Aerodyn. 89, 135–151.
at

14  Letchford, C. W., and Holmes, J. D. 1994. “Wind loads on free-standing walls in turbulent
m

15  boundary layers.” J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 51(1), 1–27.

or

16  Letchford, C. W., and Robertson, A. P. 1999. “Mean wind loading at the leading ends of free-
17  standing walls.” J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 79(1), 123–134.
nf

18  Macdonald, P. A., Kwok, K. C. S., and Holmes, J. D. 1988. “Wind loads on circular storage bins,
rI

19  silos and tanks: 1. Point pressure measurements on isolated structures,” J. Wind Eng. Indust.
Fo

20  Aerodyn. 31(2–3), 165–187.

21  Macdonald, P. A., Holmes, J. D., and Kwok, K. C. S. 1990. Wind loads on circular storage bins,
22  silos and tanks. II. Effect of grouping, J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 34(1), 77–95.

23  Mans, C., Kopp, G., and Surry, D. 2000. “Wind loads on parapets, Part 1.” BLWTL-SS23-2000,
24  London, ON: University of Western Ontario.

25  Mans, C., Kopp, G., and Surry, D. 2001. “Wind loads on parapets, Parts 2 and 3.” BLWT-SS37-
26  2001 and BLWT-SS38-2001, London, ON: University of Western Ontario.

20 
 
 1  Meyer, D., Zisis, I., Hajra, B., Chowdhury, A.G., and Irwin, P. 2017. “An experimental study in
2  the wind-induced response of variable message signs.” Front. Built Environ., 3, 1-10.

3  Mehta, K. C., Smith, D. A., and Zuo, D. 2012. “Field and wind tunnel testing of signs, final report,
4  test procedures and outcomes.” Lubbock, TX, Texas Tech University.

5  NAAMM (National Association of Architectural Metal Manufacturers). 2007. “Guide

6  specifications for design of metal flagpoles,” ANSI/NAAMM FP 1001–13, Glen Ellyn, IL:
7  NAAM.

LY
8  Robertson, A. P., Hoxey, R. P., Short, J. L., Ferguson, W. A., and Osmond, S. 1995. “Wind loads
9  on free-standing walls: A full-scale study.” In Proc., 9th Intl. Conf. on Wind Eng., Wiley Eastern

N
10  Science, 457–468.

O
11  Robertson, A. P., Hoxey, R. P., Short, J. L., Ferguson, W. A., and Osmond, S. 1996. “Full-scale
testing to determine the wind loads on free-standing walls.” J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 60(1),
12 
n
io
13  123–137.
at
14  Robertson, A. P., Hoxey, R. P., Short, J. L., and Ferguson, W. A. 1997. “Full scale measurements
15  and computational predictions of wind loads on free standing walls.” J. Wind Eng. Indust.
m

16  Aerodyn., 67-68, 639–646.

or

17  Sabransky, I. J., and Melbourne, W. H. 1987. “Design pressure distribution on circular silos with
nf

18  conical roofs.” J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 26(1), 65–84.

rI

19  SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California) PV2. 2017. Wind design for solar arrays,
20  SEAOC PV2-2017.
Fo

21  Smith, D. A., Zuo, D., and Mehta, K. C. 2014. “Characteristics of wind induced net force and
22  torque on a rectangular sign measured in the field.” J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 133(0), 80–91.

23  Standards Australia. 2002. “Structural design actions, Part 2: Wind actions.” AS/NZS 1170.2:2002.
24  Standards Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, AU.

25  Standards Australia. 2011. “Structural design actions—Wind actions.” AS/NZS 1170.2:2011.
26  Standards Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, AU.

21 
 
 1  Stathopoulos, T., Saathoff, P., and Bedair, R. 2002a. “Wind pressures on parapets of flat roofs.” J.
2  Arch. Eng. 8(2), 49–54.

3  Stathopoulos, T., Saathoff, P., and Du, X. 2002b. “Wind loads on parapets.” J. Wind Eng. Indust.
4  Aerodyn. 90, 503–514.

5  Stenabaugh, S. E., Iida, Y., Kopp, G. A., and Karava, P. 2015. “Wind loads on photovoltaic arrays
6  mounted on sloped roofs of low-rise building, parallel to the roof surface.” J. Wind Eng. Indust.
7  Aerodyn. 139(4), 16–26.

LY
8  Strobel, K., Banks, D. 2014 “Effects of vortex shedding in arrays of long inclined flat plates and
9  ramifications for ground-mounted photovoltaic arrays.” J. of Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 133: 146-

N
10  149.

O
11  SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). 2012. “Wind loads on low profile solar
photovoltaic system on flat roofs.” Report SEAOC-PV2-2012, Sacramento, CA.
12 
n
io
13  SIA (Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects). 1956. “Normen fur die Belastungsannahmen,
at
14  die Inbetriebnahme und die Uberwachung der Bauten.” SIA Technische Normen No. 160, Zurich.
m

15  Taylor, Z. J., Browne, M.T.L., 2020 “Hybrid pressure integration and buffeting analysis for multi-
16  row wind loading in an array of single-axis trackers.” J. of Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 197,
or

17  104056.
nf

18  TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association). 1991. “Structural standards for steel antenna
rI

19  towers and antenna supporting structures.” ANSI/EIA/TIA 222-E., Arlington, VA.
Fo

20  Zuo, D., Letchford, C. W., and Wayne, S. 2011. “Wind tunnel study of wind loading on rectangular
21  louvered panels,” Wind Struct. 14(5), 449–463.

22  Zuo, D., Smith, D. A., and Mehta, K. C. 2014. “Experimental study of wind loading of rectangular
23  sign structures.” J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 130(0): 62–74.

24 

22