1 

CHAPTER C30

2  WIND LOADS: COMPONENTS AND CLADDING

3 

4  In developing the set of pressure coefficients applicable for the design of components and
5  cladding (C&C) as given in Figures 30.3-1, 30.3-2A–G, 30.3-3, 30.3-4, 30.3-5A–B, and 30.3-6,
an envelope approach was followed but using different methods than for the main wind force

LY
6 
7  resisting system (MWFRS) of Figure 28.3-1. Because of the small effective area that may be
8  involved in the design of a particular component (consider, for example, the effective area

N
9  associated with the design of a fastener), the pointwise pressure fluctuations may be highly

O
10  correlated over the effective area of interest.

11 
n
Consider the local purlin loads shown in Figure C28.3-1. The approach involved spatial
io
12  averaging and time averaging of the point pressures over the effective area transmitting loads to
at
13  the purlin while the building model was permitted to rotate in the wind tunnel through 360
14  degrees. As the induced localized pressures may also vary widely as a function of the specific
m

15  location on the building, height above ground level, exposure, and, more important, local
or

16  geometric discontinuities and location of the element relative to the boundaries in the building
17  surfaces (e.g., walls, roof lines), these factors were also enveloped in the wind tunnel tests. Thus,
nf

18  for the pressure coefficients given in Figures 30.3-1, 30.3-2A–G, 30.3-3, 30.3-4, 30.3-5A–B, and
rI

19  30.3-6, the directionality of the wind and influence of exposure have been removed and the
20  surfaces of the building have been “zoned” to reflect an envelope of the peak pressures possible
Fo

21  for a given design application.

22  For ASCE 7-16, the roof zones and pressure coefficients for Figure 30.3-2A were modified
23  based on the analysis by Kopp and Morrison (2014), which made use of the extensive wind
24  tunnel database developed by Ho et al. (2005). St. Pierre et al. (2005) provided an evaluation of
25  this database compared to earlier data by Davenport et al. (1977, 1978) and ASCE 7 (2002),
26  while Ho et al. (2005) compared the data to full-scale field data from Texas Tech University
27  (Mehta and Levitan 1998). All source data used in the study are publicly accessible through the

1 
 
 1  NIST website (see e.g. Main and Fritz 2006). Compared to previous versions of ASCE 7, the
2  pressure coefficients have been increased and are now more consistent with coefficients for
3  buildings higher than 60 ft (18.3 m). Roof zone sizes are also modified from those of earlier
4  versions to minimize the increase of pressure coefficients in Zones 1 and 2. The data indicate
5  that for these low-rise buildings, the size of the roof zones depends primarily on the building
6  height, h . A Zone 1 now occurs for large buildings, which accounts for the lower wind loads in
7  the middle of the roof. Zone 3 (roof corner) is an L shape, consistent with the shape of Zone 3 for
8  buildings higher than 60 ft (18.3 m) and consistent with the wind loading data. Four potential

LY
9  zone configurations based on the ratios of the smallest and largest building plan dimensions are
10  illustrated in Figure C30-1. In addition, when the greatest horizontal dimension is less than 0.4h

N
11  (the building does not correspond to a typical low-rise building shape), there is a single roof zone
(Zone 3). Detailed explanations can be found in Kopp and Morrison (2014).

O
12 

13 

n
io
at
m
or
nf
rI
Fo

14 

15  Figure C30-1. Four possible scenarios for roof zones, which depend on the ratios of the least and
16  largest horizontal plan dimensions to the mean roof height h .

17 

18  As indicated in the discussion for Figure 28.3-1, the wind tunnel experiments checked both
19  Exposure B and C terrains. Basically, ( GC p ) values associated with Exposure B terrain would

20  be higher than those for Exposure C terrain because of reduced velocity pressure in Exposure B

2 
 
 1  terrain. The ( GC p ) values given in Figures 30.3-1, 30.3-2A–G, 30.3-3, 30.3-4, 30.3-5A–B, and

2  30.3-6 are associated with Exposure C terrain as obtained in the wind tunnel. However, they may
3  also be used for any exposure when the correct velocity pressure representing the appropriate
4  exposure is used. The ( GC p ) values given in Figure 30.3-2A–C are associated with wind tunnel

5  tests performed in both Exposures B and C.

6  For Figure 30.3-2A, the coefficients apply equally to Exposures B and C, based on wind tunnel
7  data that show insignificant differences in ( GC p ) for Exposures B and C. Consequently, the

LY
8  truncation for K z in Table 30.3-1 of ASCE 7-10 is not required for buildings below 30 ft (9.1

9  m), and the lower K z values may be used.

N
10  The pressure coefficients given in Figure 30.4-1 for buildings with mean height greater than 60 ft

O
11  (18.3 m) were developed following a similar approach, but the influence of exposure was not
12 
n
enveloped (Stathopoulos and Dumitrescu-Brulotte 1989). Therefore, Exposure Category B, C, or
io
13  D may be used with the values of ( GC p ) in Figure 30.4-1, as appropriate.
at

14  C30.1 SCOPE

m

15  C30.1.1 Building Types

or

16  Guidance for determining C f and Af for C&C of structures found in petrochemical and other
nf

17  industrial facilities that are not otherwise addressed in ASCE 7 can be found in Wind Loads for
rI

18  Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities (ASCE Task Committee on Wind-Induced Forces
Fo

19  2011). The 2011 edition references ASCE 7-05, and the user needs to make appropriate
20  adjustments where compliance with the ASCE 7-10 standard is required.

21  C30.1.5 Air-Permeable Cladding

22  Air-permeable roof or wall claddings allow partial air pressure equalization between their
23  exterior and interior surfaces. Examples include siding, pressure-equalized rain screen walls,
24  shingles, tiles (including modular vegetative roof assemblies), concrete roof pavers, and
25  aggregate roof surfacing.

3 
 
 1  The peak pressure acting across an air-permeable cladding material is dependent on the
2  characteristics of other components or layers of a building envelope assembly. At any given
3  instant, the total net pressure across a building envelope assembly is equal to the sum of the
4  partial pressures across the individual layers, as shown in Figure C30.1-1. However, the
5  proportion of the total net pressure borne by each layer varies from instant to instant because of
6  fluctuations in the external and internal pressures and depends on the porosity and stiffness of
7  each layer, as well as the volumes of the air spaces between the layers. As a result, although
8  there is load sharing among the various layers, the sum of the peak pressures across the

LY
9  individual layers typically exceeds the peak pressure across the entire system. In the absence of
10  detailed information on the division of loads, a simple, conservative approach is to assign the

N
11  entire differential pressure to each layer designed to carry load.

O
12 

n
io
at
m
or
nf

13 
rI

14 
Fo

15  Figure C30.1-1. Distribution of net components and cladding pressure acting on a building
16  surface (building envelope) composed of three components (layers).

17 

18  To maximize pressure equalization (reduction) across any cladding system (irrespective of the
19  permeability of the cladding itself), the layer or layers behind the cladding should be

20   Relatively stiff in comparison to the cladding material; and

4 
 
 1   Relatively air-impermeable in comparison to the cladding material.
2 

3  Furthermore, the air space between the cladding and the next adjacent building envelope surface
4  behind the cladding (e.g., the exterior sheathing) should be as small as practicable and
5  compartmentalized to avoid communication or venting between different pressure zones of a
6  building’s surfaces.

7  The design wind pressures derived from Chapter 30 represent the pressure differential between

LY
8  the exterior and interior surfaces of the exterior envelope (wall or roof system). Because of the
9  partial air-pressure equalization provided by air-permeable claddings, the C&C pressures derived

N
10  from Chapter 30 can overestimate the load on air-permeable cladding elements. The designer
11  may elect either to use the loads derived from Chapter 30 or to use loads derived by an approved

O
12  alternative method. If the designer desires to determine the pressure differential across a specific
13 
n
cladding element in combination with other elements comprising a specific building envelope
io
14  assembly, appropriate pressure measurements should be made on the applicable building
15  envelope assembly, or reference should be made to recognized literature (Cheung and Melbourne
at

16  1986; Haig 1990; Baskaran 1992; SBCCI 1994; Peterka et al. 1997; ASTM 2006, 2007; Kala et
m

17  al. 2008; Baskaran et al. 2012; Kopp and Gavanski 2012; Cope et al. 2012) for documentation
pertaining to wind loads. Such alternative methods may vary according to a given cladding
or

18 
19  product or class of cladding products or assemblies, because each has unique features that affect
nf

20  pressure equalization. It is important to consider the methodology used to determine wind
pressure distribution through a multilayered assembly including an air-permeable cladding layer.
rI

21 
22  Recent full-scale wind tunnel tests have shown that an accurate distribution of the wind pressure
Fo

23  in a multilayered exterior wall assembly must account for the spatial and temporal (dynamic)
24  fluctuations in wind pressure representative of actual wind flow conditions (Cope et al. 2012).
25  Other factors to consider include the influence of airflow pathways through the assembly (e.g.,
26  openings or penetrations through any given layer) and appropriate methods of enveloping peak
27  pressure coefficients for each layer of a multilayered assembly (e.g., Cope et al. 2012) to ensure
28  system reliability and consistency with the characterization of peak pressure coefficients in this
29  standard.

5 
 
 1  Modular Vegetative Roof Assemblies consist of vegetation and other components integrated as
2  a tray. These trays have vertical air gaps (a minimum of 0.25 in. [6.25 mm]) between the module
3  and roofing system and horizontal air gaps between them. These air gaps allow partial air
4  pressure equalization.

5  C30.3 BUILDING TYPES

6  C30.3.1 Conditions

LY
7  For velocity pressure, see commentary, Section C26.10.1.

8  C30.3.2 Design Wind Pressures

N
O
9  For velocity pressure, see commentary, Section C26.10.1.

Figures 30.3-1 and 30.3-2A–G. The pressure coefficient values provided in these figures are to
10 
n
be used for buildings with a mean roof height of 60 ft (18.3 m) or less. The values were obtained
io
11 
12  from wind tunnel tests conducted at the University of Western Ontario (Davenport et al. 1977,
at

13  1978; Ho et al. 2005; St. Pierre et al. 2005; Kopp and Morrison 2014; Vickery et al. 2011;
m

14  Gavanski et al. 2013). The negative roof GC p values given in these figures are greater (in
or

15  magnitude) than those given in previous versions (2010 and earlier) but are consistent with those
16  given by Ho et al. (2005). The GC p values given in the figures are given in equation form in
nf

17  Tables C30.3-1 to C30.3-10. Note that the GC p values given in Figure 30.3-2A–G are a function
rI

18  of the roof slope. There has been an effort made for ASCE 7-22 to make the graphs and roof
Fo

19  zones simpler than in ASCE 7-16. Most of the highest and lowest (GCp) values have not changed
20  except where zones have been merged or where the zones were modified to better fit the actual
21  wind tunnel data. The smallest effective wind areas (EWAs) have been truncated at 10 ft2 (0.93
22  m2). There was not a large amount of wind tunnel data for EWAs smaller than 10 ft2 (0.93 m2)
23  available for the graphs used in ASCE 7-16, and thus the GCp values for some shapes and slopes
24  have been reduced, since the GCp values do not exceed that value established at the 10 ft2 (0.93
25  m2) cutoff. Some changes have resulted in greater pressures in ASCE 7-22 than in ASCE 7-16;
26  primarily these increases are evident for gable roofs with a slope of 7 to 20 degrees, and Zones 2
27  and 3 on hip roofs with a slope of 27 to 45 degrees. To interpolate GCp values for hip roofs with
6 
 
 1  slopes between 27 and 45 degrees, the effective wind areas for both slopes must be the same. It is
2  the judgement of the Wind Load Subcommittee that with small EWAs, there is significant load
3  sharing that occurs between cladding elements, thus distributing the effects of the high localized
4  pressures presented in ASCE 7-16. Some of the characteristics of the values in the figure are as
5  follows:

6  1. Values are combined values of ( GC p ). Gust-effect factors from these values should

7  not be separated.
8  2. Velocity pressure, q h , evaluated at mean roof height should be used with all values of

LY
9  ( GC p ).

N
10  3. Values provided in the figure represent the upper bounds of the most severe values
for any wind direction. The reduced probability that the design wind speed may not

O
11 
12  occur in the particular direction for which the worst pressure coefficient is recorded
13 
n
has not been included in the values shown in the figure.
io
14  4. Wind tunnel values, as measured, were based on the mean hourly wind speed. Values
provided in the figures are the measured values divided by the 3-second dynamic gust
at
15 
16  pressure at mean roof height to adjust for the reduced pressure coefficient values
m

17  associated with a 3 s gust speed.

or

18 
nf

19  Table C30.3-1. Walls for Buildings with h ≤ 60 ft (18.3 m) (Figure 30.3-1).
rI

Positive: Zones 4 and 5 GC

p  1.0 A  10 ft 2
Fo

GC p  1.1766  0.1766 log A 10  A  500 ft 2

GC p  0.7 A  500 ft 2

Negative: Zone 4 GC p  1.1 A  10 ft 2

GC p  1.2766  0.1766 log A 10  A  500 ft 2

GC p  0.8 A  500 ft 2

7 
 
 Negative: Zone 5 GC p  1.4 A  10 ft 2

GC p  1.7532  0.3532 log A 10  A  500 ft 2

GC p  0.8 A  500 ft 2

1 

2  Table C30.3-2. Gable Roof, θ ≤ 7° (Figure 30.3-2A).

LY
Positive with and without overhang
All zones GC p  0.3 A  10 ft 2
GC p  0.4000  0.1000 log A 10  A  100 ft 2

N
GC p  0.2 A  100 ft 2

O
Negative without overhang
Zone 1′ GC p  0.9 A  100 ft 2

n
GC p  1.9000  0.5000 log A 100  A  1, 000 ft 2
io
GC p  1.1766  0.1766 log A A  1, 000 ft 2
at
Zone 1 GC p  1.7 A  10 ft 2
GC p  2.1120  0.4120 log A 10  A  500 ft 2
m

GC p  1.0 A  500 ft 2
or

Zone 2 GC p  2.3 A  10 ft 2
GC p  2.8297  0.5297 log A
nf

10  A  500 ft 2
GC p  1.4 A  500 ft 2
rI

Zone 3 GC p  3.2 A  10 ft 2
Fo

GC p  4.2595  1.0595log A 10  A  500 ft 2

GC p  1.4 A  500 ft 2
Negative with overhang
Zones 1 and 1′ GC p  1.7 A  10 ft 2
GC p  1.8000  0.1000 log A 10  A  100 ft 2
𝐺𝐶 3.3168 0.8584 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐴 100  A  500 ft 2
GC p  1.0 A  500 ft 2
Zone 2 GC p  2.3 A  10 ft 2

8 
 
 GC p  3.0063  0.7063log A 10  A  500 ft 2
GC p  1.1 A  500 ft 2
Zone 3 GC p  3.2 A  10 ft 2
GC p  4.4360  1.2360 log A 10  A  500 ft 2
GC p  1.1 A  500 ft 2
1 

2  Table C30.3-3. Gable Roof, 7° < θ ≤ 20° (Figure 30.3-2B).

LY
Positive

All zones GCp = 0.6 A ≤ 10 ft2

N
GCp = 0.8306 – 0.2306 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

O
GCp = 0.3 A ≥ 200 ft2

Negative
n
io
Zone 1 GCp = –2.0 A ≤ 10 ft2
at

GCp = –3.0155 + 1.0155 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 300 ft2

m

GCp = –0.5 A ≥ 300 ft2

or

Zone 2 GCp = –2.7 A ≤ 10 ft2

nf

GCp = –4.0067 + 1.3066 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

GCp = –1.0 A ≥ 200 ft2

rI

Zone 3 GCp = –3.6 A ≤ 10 ft2

Fo

GCp = –5.400 + 1.800 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –1.8 A ≥ 100 ft2

3 

4  Table C30.3-4. Gable Roofs, 20° < θ ≤ 27° (Figure 30.3-2C).

Positive

All zones GCp = 0.6 A ≤ 10 ft2

9 
 
 GCp = 0.8306 – 0.2306 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

GCp = 0.3 A ≥ 200 ft2

Negative

Zone 1 GCp = –1.5 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –2.0380 + 0.5380 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

GCp = –0.8 A ≥ 200 ft2

Zone 2 GCp = –2.5 A ≤ 10 ft2

LY
GCp = 3.800 + 1.300 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

N
GCp = –1.2 A ≥ 100 ft2

O
Zone 3 GCp = –3.0 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = 4.600 + 1.600 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

n
io
GCp = –1.4 A ≥ 100 ft2
at
1 

2  Table C30.3-5. Gable Roofs, 27° < θ ≤ 45° (Figure 30.3-2D).

m

Positive
or

All zones GCp = 0.9 A ≤ 10 ft2

nf

GCp = 1.2074 – 0.3074 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

rI

GCp = 0.5 A ≥ 200 ft2

Fo

Negative

Zone 1 GCp = –1.8 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –2.800 + 1.000 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –0.8 A ≥ 100 ft2

Zone 2 GCp = –2.0 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –2.7686 + 0.76862 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

10 
 
 GCp = –1.0 A ≥ 200 ft2

Zone 3 GCp = –2.5 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –3.6529 + 1.1529 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

GCp = –1.0 A ≥ 200 ft2

1 

2  Table C30.3-6. Hip Roofs, 7° < θ ≤ 20° (Figure 30.3-2E).

LY
Positive

All zones GCp = 0.7 A ≤ 10 ft2

N
GCp = 1.100 – 0.400 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

O
GCp = 0.3 A ≥ 100 ft2

Negative
n
io
Zone 1 GCp = –1.8 A ≤ 10 ft2
at
GCp = –2.5686 + 0.7686 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2
m

GCp = –0.8 A ≥ 200 ft2

or

Zone 2 GCp = –2.4 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –3.2455 + 0.8455 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

nf

GCp = –1.3 A ≥ 200 ft2

rI

Zone 3 GCp = –2.6 A ≤ 10 ft2

Fo

GCp = –3.5224 + 0.9223 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 200 ft2

GCp = –1.4 A ≥ 200 ft2

4 

5  Table C30.3-8. Hip Roofs, 20° < θ ≤ 27° (Figure 30.3-2F).

Positive

11 
 
 All zones GCp = 0.7 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = 1.100 – 0.400 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = 0.3 A ≥ 100 ft2

Negative

Zone 1 GCp = –1.4 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –2.000 + 0.600 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –0.8 A ≥ 100 ft2

LY
Zones 2 and 3 GCp = –2.0 A ≤ 10 ft2

N
GCp = –3.000 + 1.000 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

O
GCp = –1.0 A ≥ 100 ft2

1 

Table C30.3-9. Hip Roofs, 𝛉

n
𝟒𝟓° (Figure 30.3-2G).
io
2 
at
Positive

Zone 1 GCp = 0.7 A ≤ 10 ft2

m

GCp = 1.100 – 0.400 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

or

GCp = 0.3 A ≥ 100 ft2

nf

Negative
rI

Zone 1 GCp = –1.5 A ≤ 10 ft2

Fo

GCp = –2.300 + 0.800 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –0.7 A ≥ 100 ft2

Zone 2 GCp = –1.8 A ≤ 10 ft2

GCp = –2.800 + 1.000 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –0.8 A ≥ 100 ft2

Zone 3 GCp = –2.4 A ≤ 10 ft2

12 
 
 GCp = –3.800 + 1.400 logA 10 ≤ A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –1.0 A ≥ 100 ft2

2 

3  Each C&C element should be designed for the maximum positive and negative pressures
4  (including applicable internal pressures) acting on it. The pressure coefficient values should be
5  determined for each C&C element on the basis of its location on the building and the effective
6  area for the element. Research indicates that the pressure coefficients provided generally apply to
facades with architectural features, such as balconies, ribs, and various façade textures

LY
7 
8  (Stathopoulos and Zhu 1988, 1990).

N
9  Overhang pressures are determined by adding the appropriate roof coefficient from the graphs

O
10  shown in Figures 30.3-2A–G to the adjacent positive wall coefficient from the graph shown in
11  Figure 30.3-1. For example, for the total overhang uplift on an edge zone (Zone 3) of a hip roof
12 
n
with a slope of 27 degrees [GCp = –2.0 for an EWA of 10 ft2 (0.93 m2)], add the adjacent positive
io
13  wall coefficient to determine the total uplift. The GCp for Zone 4 on the wall is +1.0 for an EWA
of 10 ft2 (0.93 m2), so the total uplift has a GCp coefficient of –3.0. The positive wall pressure
at
14 
15  creates a positive or windward pressure on the underside of the overhang. That positive upward
m

16  pressure is added to the uplift pressure on the upper side of the roof surface.
or

17  Although the smallest EWA shown on any graph is 10 ft2 (0.93 m2), the practitioner may still
nf

18  need to determine what the approximate GCp should be for roof systems (e.g., tile roof) that may
19  have EWAs of less than 10 ft2 (0.93 m2). This may be done by extending the sloped portion of
rI

20  the graphed coefficient line up to the required EWA and read the Y-axis for GCp for the reduced
Fo

21  EWA, while considering any load-sharing reduction factors from relevant studies or testing.

22  The coefficients for hip roof slopes of 20 to 27 degrees and 45 degrees have been modified so
23  that there are the same number of zones with the same EWA limits; therefore, the roof
24  coefficients can now be determined by interpolation for roof slopes between 27 and 45 degrees,
25  eliminating the equations that had been needed to determine the slope before determining the
26  roof GCp coefficients. Zones 2 and 3 on a 45-degree slope should both be interpolated to Zone 3
27  on a 27-degree slope.

13 
 
 1  The following guidance is based on the collective judgment of the Wind Load Committee. For L-
2  shaped, T-shaped, and other “irregular” shapes, Figure C30.3-2 depicts the roof and wall zones
3  for use with Figures 30.3-1, 30.3-2, 30.3-4, 30.3-5, 30.3-6, and 30.4-1 for wind loads on C&C of
4  buildings, showing the applicability to buildings that are rectangular in plan. To address
5  buildings with nonrectangular plans, Figure C30.3-2 can be used for guidance in applying the
6  requirements. When an outward corner protrudes less than the distance a from the wall, neither
7  Zone 3 nor 5 are required; however, when the outward protrusion is greater than a , Zones 3 and
8  5 are required. Reentrant (interior) corners do not require Zones 3 or 5. For corners that have an

LY
9  included interior angle greater than 135 degrees, neither Zone 3 nor 5 is required. To determine
10  the length of a , a rectangle which encloses the building is drawn over the building plan. The

N
11  dimensions of this rectangle are used to determine the horizontal dimensions for the calculation
of a .

O
12 

13 
n
io
at
m
or
nf
rI
Fo

14 

15  Figure C30.3-2. Plan view of roof and wall zones for component and cladding loads on buildings
16  with nonrectangular plans.

14 
 
 1 

2  Figure 30.3-3 has been updated in the 2022 edition to be consistent with the changes to the flat
3  roof C&C external pressure zones that appeared in the 2016 edition.

4  Figures 30.3-4, 30.3-5A, and 30.3-5B. These figures present values of ( GC p ) for the design of

5  roof C&C for buildings with multispan gable roofs and buildings with monoslope roofs. The
6  coefficients are based on wind tunnel studies (Stathopoulos and Mohammadian 1986, Surry and
7  Stathopoulos 1988, Stathopoulos and Saathoff 1991).

LY
8  Figure 30.3-6. The values of ( GC p ) in this figure are for the design of roof C&C for buildings

with sawtooth roofs and mean roof height, h , less than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m). Note that the

N
9 
10  coefficients for corner zones on segment A differ from those coefficients for corner zones on the

O
11  segments designated as B, C, and D. Also, when the roof angle is less than or equal to 10
12 
n
degrees, values of ( GC p ) for regular gable roofs (Figure 30.3-2A) are to be used. The
io
13  coefficients included in Figure 30.3-6 are based on wind tunnel studies reported by Saathoff and
Stathopoulos (1992).
at
14 
m

15  Figure 30.3-7. This figure for cladding pressures on dome roofs is based on Taylor (1991).
16  Negative pressures are to be applied to the entire surface because they apply along the full arc
or

17  that is perpendicular to the wind direction and that passes through the top of the dome. Users are
nf

18  cautioned that only three shapes were available to define values in this figure: hD / D  0.5 ,

19  f / D  0.5 ; hD / D  0.0 , f / D  0.5 ; and hD / D  0.0 , f / D  0.33 .

rI

Figure 30.3-8. The pressure and force coefficient values in these tables were based on the
Fo

20 
21  pressure and force coefficient values from ANSI A58.1-1982 (1982) and multiplied by 1.2. That
22  multiplier was changed from 1.2 to 0.87 in ASCE 7-95 (1998), but no substantiation was
23  provided for the change. The multiplier was changed back to 1.2 in ASCE 7-16 (2017) and
24  incorporated into the values in this figure. The coefficients specified in these tables are based on
25  wind tunnel tests conducted under conditions of uniform flow and low turbulence, and their
26  validity in turbulent boundary-layer flows has yet to be completely established.

15 
 
 1  C30.3.2.1 Bottom Horizontal Surface of Elevated Buildings. This section addresses the design
2  wind pressures for the underside of the bottom flat horizontal surface of elevated buildings. The
3  elevation of buildings on piers or other supporting structures exposes the underside of the
4  building to airflow and wind pressures, and field observations have shown substantial floor
5  underside cladding loss due to wind. The provisions in this section indicate that (1) the wind
6  pressure coefficients on the bottom horizontal surface are similar in magnitude to those on the
7  roof of the building, (2) roof pressure coefficients are not substantially impacted by elevation
8  height above grade, and (3) these relationships are not as significant, and therefore can be

LY
9  neglected, for buildings elevated less than 2 ft (0.61 m); these match the observations from large-
10  scale wind tunnel testing (Kim et al. 2020, Abdelfatah et al. 2020). Those tests determined GCp

N
11  values for both the roof and the bottom horizontal surfaces based on the velocity pressure at
12  mean roof height. That reference velocity pressure has been retained in these provisions. An

O
13  additional provision was introduced for increased positive pressure coefficients on the horizontal
14 
n
building surfaces directly above and adjacent to walls, and within partially enclosed spaces.
io
15  These areas are illustrated by shaded areas around the small, enclosed room under the primary
16  structure and the area labeled partially enclosed area in the plan view in Figure 30.3-1A. These
at

17  higher-magnitude positive pressure coefficients are meant to address wind pressure build-up
m

18  caused by wind flow being restricted by the wall or enclosed area and are set equal to the
pressure coefficients used for the soffits of overhangs. When a building with a flat bottom
or

19 
20  horizontal surface is situated above a sloped ground, the effective height of elevation above
nf

21  grade, hB, should be taken as the maximum height between the sloped ground and the bottom of
the building considering all sides of the building. This approach leads to conservative wind
rI

22 
23  coefficient zones for buildings with h ≤ 60 ft (18.3 m), but does not lead to significant changes in
Fo

24  loading.

25  Figure 30.4-1. The pressure coefficients shown in this figure reflect the results of comprehensive
26  wind tunnel studies by Stathopoulos and Dumitrescu-Brulotte (1989). The availability of more-
27  comprehensive wind tunnel data has also allowed a simplification of the zoning for pressure
28  coefficients: flat roofs are now divided into three zones, and walls are represented by two zones.

29  The external pressure coefficients and zones given in Figure 30.4-1 were established by wind
30  tunnel tests on isolated “boxlike” buildings (Akins and Cermak 1975, Peterka and Cermak

16 
 
 1  1975). Boundary-layer wind tunnel tests on high-rise buildings (mostly in downtown city
2  centers) have identified variations in pressure coefficients and the distribution of pressure on the
3  different building façades (Templin and Cermak 1978). These variations are caused by building
4  geometry, low attached buildings, nonrectangular cross sections, setbacks, and sloping surfaces.
5  Surrounding buildings also contribute to the variations in pressure. Wind tunnel tests indicate
6  that pressure coefficients are not distributed symmetrically and can give rise to torsional wind
7  loading on the building.

8  Boundary-layer wind tunnel tests that include modeling of surrounding buildings permit the

LY
9  establishment of more exact magnitudes and distributions of ( GC p ) for buildings that are not

10  isolated or “boxlike” in shape.

N
O
11  PART 2: BUILDINGS WITH h > 60 ft (18.3 m)

12 
n
In Equation (30.4-1) a velocity pressure term, qi , appears that is defined as the “velocity
io
13  pressure for internal pressure determination.” The positive internal pressure is dictated by the
positive exterior pressure on the windward face at the point where there is an opening. The
at
14 
15  positive exterior pressure at the opening is governed by the value of q at the level of the
m

16  opening, not q h . For positive internal pressure evaluation, qi may conservatively be evaluated at
or

17  height h (qi = gh). For low buildings, this height does not make much difference, but for the
example of a 300 ft (91.4 m) building in Exposure B with the highest opening at 60 ft (18.3 m),
nf

18 
19  the difference between q 3 0 0 and q60 represents a 59% increase in internal pressure. This increase
rI

20  is unrealistic and represents an unnecessary degree of conservatism. Accordingly, q i  q z for

Fo

21  positive internal pressure evaluation in partially enclosed buildings, where height z is defined as
22  the level of the highest opening in the building that could affect the positive internal pressure.

23  C30.4.2.1 Bottom Horizontal Surface of Elevated Buildings. This section provides guidance
24  for determining design pressures for the bottom flat horizontal surface of elevated buildings with
25  h > 60 ft (18.3 m). It follows the logic used to develop main wind force resisting system design
26  wind loads for the bottom surface of elevated buildings (see C27.3.1.1), except that the GCp
27  values follow the rules for C&C pressure coefficients and are obtained from Figure 30.5-1. In
28  contrast to C&C loads for the bottom horizontal surface of low-rise buildings, which use the

17 
 
 1  velocity pressure at mean roof height, these provisions use a velocity pressure at a height equal
2  to the elevation of the bottom surface of the elevated building plus 25% of the height of the
3  building above, which is consistent with the provisions of Section 27.3.1.1 and as explained and
4  illustrated in Section C27.3.1.1. The provision which calls for increased positive pressure
5  coefficients on the horizontal building surfaces directly above and adjacent to walls, and within
6  partially enclosed spaces, used for low-rise buildings has also been applied to buildings with h >
7  60 ft (18.3 m), as explained in Section C30.3.2.1. These areas are illustrated by shaded areas
8  around the small, enclosed room under the primary structure and the area labeled partially

LY
9  enclosed area in the plan view in Figure 30.5-1A. When a building with a flat bottom horizontal
10  surface is situated above a sloped ground, the effective height of elevation above grade, hB,

N
11  should be taken as the maximum height between the sloped ground and the bottom of the
12  building considering all sides of the building. This approach is used to ensure conservative

O
13  velocity pressures for such buildings with h > 60 ft (18.3 m). For buildings elevated above a
14 
n
parking garage, the height of the elevation of the building is hB, the distance between the bottom
io
15  of the building above and the top of the parking deck surface below. However, the height used to
16  calculate the reference wind pressure used to determine the magnitude of the wind loads should
at

17  still be based on the height of the bottom surface of the elevated building above grade plus 25%
m

18  of the height of the building above.

or

19  PART 3: OPEN BUILDINGS

nf

20  C30.5 BUILDING TYPES

rI

21  In determining loads on C&C elements for open building roofs using Figures 30.5-1, 30.5-2, and
Fo

22  30.5-3, it is important for the designer to note that the net pressure coefficient, C N , is based on

23  contributions from the top and bottom surfaces of the roof—that is, the element receives load
24  from both surfaces. Such would not be the case if the surface below the roof were separated
25  structurally from the top roof surface. In this case, the pressure coefficient should be separated
26  for the effect of top and bottom pressures, or conservatively, each surface could be designed
27  using the C N value from Figures 30.5-1, 30.5-2, and 30.5-3.

18 
 
 1  PART 4: BUILDING APPURTENANCES AND ROOFTOP STRUCTURES AND
2  EQUIPMENT

3  C30.9 ATTACHED CANOPIES ON BUILDINGS

4  The provisions result from wind tunnel test results on pressures applied on horizontal canopies
5  described by Zisis and Stathopoulos (2010), Zisis et al. (2011), Candelario et al. (2014), Zisis et
6  al. (2017), Sakib et al ( n.d.) and Naeiji et al. (2020). Restrictions to canopies that are essentially
7  flat (maximum slope: 2%) are based on a lack of test data. Figures 30.9-1A and 30.9-1B are to be

LY
8  used for buildings under 60 ft (18.3 m) high, and Figures 30.9-2A and 30.9-2B are to be used for
9  buildings over 60 ft (18.3 m) high. Canopies are different from roof overhangs, which are simply

N
10  extensions of the roof surfaces at the same slope with the roof.

O
11  In a canopy with two physical surfaces, both Figures 30.9-1A and 30.9-1B [buildings with height
12  < 60 ft (< 18.3 m)] and both Figures 30.9-2A and 30.9-2B [buildings with height > 60 ft (> 18.3
13  m)] would be needed. n
io
14  Figures 30.9-1A and 30.9-2A, which provide the coefficients on separate surfaces, would be
at

15  used to design the fasteners of the top and soffit elements. Figures 30.9-1B and 30.9-2B would
m

16  be used to design the structure of the canopy (e.g., joists, posts, and building fasteners). In a
or

17  canopy with one physical surface, only Figures 30.9-1B and 30.9-2B are needed.

The (GCp) values given in the figures are given in equation form in Tables C30.9-1 to C30.9-4.
nf

18 
rI

19 
Fo

20  Table C30.9-1. Pressure Coefficients on Separate Surfaces of Attached Canopies on

21  Buildings with h ≤ 60 ft (18.3 m) (Figure 30.9-1A).

Negative: GCp = –1.15 A = 10 ft2

Upper surface GCp = –1.55 + 0.1737 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = –0.75 A > 100 ft2
Negative: GCp = –0.8 A = 10 ft2
Lower surface GCp = –0.95 + 0.0651 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = –0.65 A > 100 ft2
Positive: GCp = 0.8 A = 10 ft2
Upper and lower surfaces GCp = 1.0 – 0.087 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2

19 
 
 GCp = 0.6 A > 100 ft2
1 

2  Table C30.9-2. Net Pressure Coefficients Canopies Considering Simultaneous

3  Contributions from Upper and Lower Surfaces on Attached Canopies on Buildings with h
4  ≤ 60 ft (18.3 m) (Figure 30.9-1B).

Negative: GCp = –1.4 A = 10 ft2

0.9 ≤ hc/he ≤ 1 GCp = –1.7 + 0.1303 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = –1.1 A > 100 ft2
Negative: GCp = –0.9 A = 10 ft2

LY
0.5 < hc/he < 0.9 GCp = –1.15 + 0.1086 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = –0.65 A > 100 ft2
Negative: GCp = –0.6 A = 10 ft2

N
hc/he ≤ 0.5 GCp = –0.7 + 0.0434 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = –0.5 A > 100 ft2

O
Positive: GCp = 0.9 A = 10 ft2
All hc/he GCp = 1.15 – 0.109 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = 0.65 A > 100 ft2
5  n
io
6  Table C30.9-3. Pressure Coefficients on Separate Surfaces of Attached Canopies on
at

7  Buildings with h > 60 ft (18.3 m) (Figure 30.9-2A).

m

Negative: GCp = –1.9 A = 10 ft2

or

Upper surface GCp = –2.1 + 0.0869 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –3.1 + 0.304 log(A) 100 ft2 < A ≤ 1000 ft2
Negative: GCp = –1.0 A = 10 ft2
nf

Lower surface GCp = –1.2 + 0.0869 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2

GCp = –1.4 + 0.1303 log(A) 100 ft2 < A ≤ 1000 ft2
rI

Positive: GCp = 0.8 A = 10 ft2

Upper and lower surfaces GCp = 1.0 – 0.087 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
Fo

GCp = 0.6 A > 100 ft2

8 

9  Table C30.9-4. Net Pressure Coefficients Considering Simultaneous Contributions from

10  Upper and Lower Surfaces on Attached Canopies on Buildings with h > 60 ft (18.3 m)
11  (Figure 30.9-2B).

Negative: GCp = –2.3 A = 10 ft2

0.9 ≤ hc/he ≤ 1 GCp = –2.5 + 0.0869 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = –3.9 + 0.3909 log(A) 100 ft2 < A ≤ 1000 ft2
Negative: GCp = –1.3 A = 10 ft2

20 
 
 0.1 < hc/he < 0.9 GCp = –1.85 + 0.2389 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = –0.75 A > 100 ft2
Positive: GCp = 0.9 A = 10 ft2
All hc/he GCp = 1.15 – 0.109 log(A) 10 < A ≤ 100 ft2
GCp = 0.65 A > 100 ft2
1 

2 

3  PART 5: NONBUILDING STRUCTURES

LY
4  C30.10 CIRCULAR BINS, SILOS, AND TANKS WITH h ≤ 120 ft (36.5 m)

Section 30.10 contains the provisions for determining wind pressures on silo and tank walls and

N
5 
6  roofs. The results for isolated and grouped silos are largely based on Australian standards

O
7  (Standards Australia 2011) and the wind tunnel tests by Sabransky and Melbourne (1987) and
8  Macdonald et al. (1988, 1990). Significant increases in the mean pressures of grouped silos were
n
found in the wind tunnel tests, so the provisions of grouped tanks and silos are specified in this
io
9 
10  section.
at

11  C30.10.2 External Walls of Isolated Circular Bins, Silos, and Tanks
m
or

12  This section specifies the external pressure coefficients, GCp(α) , for the walls of circular bins,

silos, and tanks. The pressure coefficients for isolated silos are adopted from Australian
nf

13 
14  standards (Standards Australia 2011).
rI

15  C30.10.3 Internal Surface of Exterior Walls of Isolated Open-Topped Circular Bins, Silos,
Fo

16  and Tanks

17  This section specifies the internal pressure coefficients, ( GCpi ), for the walls of circular bins,

18  silos, and tanks. The internal pressure coefficients ( GCpi ) are adopted from Standards Australia

19  (2011). Based on the wind tunnel test results, mean pressures on walls for open-topped bins,
20  silos, and tanks are different from the values of circular bins, silos, and tanks with flat or conical

21  roofs. Table C30.10-1 lists the mean pressure coefficients ( GCp GCpi ) for open-topped circular

21 
 
1  bins, silos, and tanks, based on Equations (30.10-2) and (30.10-5). The distribution of the
2  external pressure around the perimeter of the wall is shown in Figure C30.10-1.

3  Table C30.10-1. Mean Pressure Coefficients (GCp – GCpi) for Open-Topped Tanks.

Aspect Ratio H/D

Angle α 0.25 0.50 1 2 3 4

0° 1.69 1.80 1.9 2 2.07 2.11

LY
15° 1.39 1.50 1.6 1.7 1.77 1.81

30° 0.99 1.10 1.2 1.3 1.37 1.41

N
45° 0.39 0.50 0.6 0.7 0.77 0.81

O
60° 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.13 0.09

75° 0.11 0.31  0.5  0.7 0.83

n 0.89
io
90° 0.11 0.31  0.5  0.7 0.83 0.89
at

105° 0.01 0.11  0.2  0.3 0.33 0.29

m

120° 0.09 0.10 0.2 0.2 0.27 0.21

or

135° 0.29 0.30 0.4 0.5 0.47 0.51

nf

150° 0.29 0.40 0.5 0.5 0.57 0.61

rI

165° 0.29 0.40 0.5 0.5 0.57 0.61

180° 0.29 0.40 0.5 0.5 0.57 0.61

Fo

4 

22 
 
 1 

2  Note: D = diameter of circular structure, in ft (m); H = height in ft (m); α = angle from the

LY
3  wind direction to a point on the wall of a circular bin, silo, or tank, in degrees.

Figure C30.10-1. Mean pressure coefficients (GCp )  (GCpi ) for open-topped tanks.

N
4 

O
5 

6 
n
C30.10.4 Roofs of Isolated Circular Bins, Silos, and Tanks
io
7  This section specifies the external pressure coefficients, ( GC p ) for the roofs of circular bins,
at

8  silos, and tanks. Two conditions are covered, as shown in Figure 30.10-2: Class 1 roofs have the
m

9  roof angle θ < 10°, and Class 2 roofs have 10° ≤ θ < 30°. Zone 1 pressures are defined
or

10  differently, increasing either with the increment of the silo height for Class 1 roofs, or with the
11  silo or tank diameter for Class 2 roofs. For cladding design, Zone 3 pressures are specified for
nf

12  the local pressures near the windward edges applicable to all classes, and Zone 4 is specified for
rI

13  the region near the cone apex used for Class 2b roofs only. Figure C30.10-2 is the graphic

presentation of the elevation views for the external pressure coefficients, ( GC p ). For Class 1
Fo

14 

15  roofs, the external pressure coefficients are based on comparisons of domed roofs and flat roofs
16  from Chapter 27 of ASCE 7-10 for maximum uplift conditions. The results of Class 2 roofs are
17  consistent with data of Sabransky and Melbourne (1987) and Macdonald et al. (1988).

18 

23 
 
 LY
N
1 

O
2  Figure C30.10-2. External pressure coefficients, ( GC p ), for roofs.

3 
n
io
4  C30.10.6 Roofs and Walls of Grouped Circular Bins, Silos, and Tanks
at

For grouped silos, ( GC p ) values for roofs and walls are largely based on AS/NZS 1170.2
m

5 

(Standards Australia 2011) and wind tunnel tests by Sabransky and Melbourne (1987) and
or

6 
7  Macdonald et al. (1990). Test results of an in-line group of three silos with a clear spacing of
nf

8  0.25D between nearest adjacent walls ( 1.25D center-to-center) by Sabransky and Melbourne
rI

9  (1987) indicated that the mean pressure coefficient between the gaps increased by 70%
10  compared to the one for the isolated silo. A similar result was observed for the roof near the wall
Fo

11  of the silo. It was concluded that a clear spacing of 0.25D produced the maximum interference
12  between two finite cylinders.

13  Test results of an in-line group of five silos with various center-to-center spacings by Macdonald
14  et al. (1990) indicated that the region of positive pressure on the windward side spans a larger
15  angular sector of the circumference than that for an isolated silo, and high negative mean
16  pressures occur near the point of shortest distance between the adjacent silos and at the outside
17  corners of the groups.

24 
 
 1  C30.12 ROOF PAVERS FOR BUILDINGS OF ALL HEIGHTS WITH ROOF SLOPES
2  LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 7 DEGREES

3  Loose-laid roof pavers are often placed on the roof with gaps in between them and with spacing
4  underneath the pavers above the roof membrane using pedestals, tabs, or integrated legs. The net
5  uplift pressure on pavers is substantially affected by pressure equalization between the top and
6  bottom surfaces of the pavers, via the gaps between the solid pavers and by other openings that
7  may be present on pavers that are not solid (Irwin et al. 2012; Asghari Mooneghi et al. 2014,
8  2016, 2017). The equalization effect is similar to that observed on solar panels mounted parallel

LY
9  to a roof surface (Kopp 2013, Stenabaugh et al. 2015, Banks 2012). The highest uplifts generally
10  occur near roof edges, particularly near roof corners, where strong vortices cause very localized

N
11  high suctions. Pressure equalization, which depends on the size of the gaps between pavers and

O
12  on the height of pedestals on which the pavers are frequently mounted, helps reduce the net uplift
13  compared with the external pressure calculated for a roof. Thus, using roof external pressure
14  n
coefficients for designing pavers, option (a) in Section 30.12, generally results in a conservative
io
15  design.
at

16  Alternative (b) in Section 30.12 permits wind tunnel tests to determine pressure equalization
m

17  effects on pavers. These tests are of two types: measurement of 𝐶 by integration of net
or

18  pressures between the top and bottom surfaces; and direct measurement of the wind speeds at
19  roof level at which the paver lift-off is initiated, from which the effective value of 𝐶 can be
nf

20  back-calculated. In wind tunnel tests the following influencing factors need to be considered:
rI

21   Building and roof geometry;

Fo

22   Ratio of the size of the gaps between the pavers to the height of pedestals on which the
23  pavers are mounted (dg/hg);
24   Interconnection of the pavers by straps or other means, which increases the effective area
25  over which wind uplift is spread and the weight that must be lifted;
26   Dynamic effects that prevent the pavers from responding instantaneously to short-
27  duration uplift forces; and
28   Effect of parapet height.
29 

25 
 
 1  Alternative (c) in Section 30.12 permits use of methods in the recognized literature. The methods
2  should take account of the five factors listed above. For pavers laid directly on the roof
3  membrane as part of a roof ballast system, guidance can be found in ANSI/SPRI RP-4 (2013) for
4  roof heights less than 150 ft (46 m).

5  REFERENCES
6  Abdelfatah, N., A. Elawady, P. Irwin, and A. G. Chowdhury. 2020. “Wind pressure distribution
7  on single-story and two story elevated structures.” In Proc., 5th Residential Building
8  Design and Construction Conf., State College, Pennsylvania.

LY
9  Akins, R. E., and J. E. Cermak. 1975. “Wind pressures on buildings.” Technical Report CER
10  7677REAJEC15. Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion Lab, Colorado State University, Fort

N
11  Collins.

O
12  ANSI (American National Standards Institute). 1982. Minimum design loads for buildings and
13  other structures. ANSI A58.1-1982. Washington, DC: ANSI.
14  n
ANSI/SPRI. 2013. Wind design standard for ballasted single ply roofing systems. ANSI/SPRI
io
15  RP-4. https://www.spri.org.
at
16  ASCE. 1998. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7-95. Reston,
17  VA: ASCE.
m

18  ASCE. 2002. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-02. Reston,
or

19  VA: ASCE.

20  ASCE. 2017. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures.
nf

21  ASCE/SEI 7-16. Reston, VA: ASCE.

rI

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

23 
24  Asghari Mooneghi, M., P. Irwin, and A. Gan Chowdhury. 2014. “Large-scale testing on wind
25  uplift of roof pavers.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 128: 22–36.
26  Asghari Mooneghi, M., P. Irwin, and A. Gan Chowdhury. 2016. “Towards guidelines for design
27  of loose-laid roof pavers for wind uplift.” Wind and Structures: An International Journal
28  22 (2): 133–160.
29  Asghari Mooneghi, M., T. Smith, P. Irwin, and A. Gan Chowdhury. 2017. “Concrete roof
30  pavers: Wind uplift aerodynamic mechanisms and design guidelines. A proposed addition

26 
 
 1  to ANSI/SPRI RP-4.” RCI, Inc. 32nd International Convention and Trade Show, March
2  16–21, Anaheim, CA.
3  ASTM International. 2006. “Standard specification for rigid poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) siding.”
4  ASTM D3679-06a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
5  ASTM. 2007. “Standard test method for wind resistance of sealed asphalt shingles (uplift
6  force/uplift resistance method).” ASTM D7158-07. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
7  Banks, D. 2012. “Wind loads on tilted flat panels on commercial roofs: The effects of corner
8  vortices.” In Advances in Hurricane Engineering, C. P. Jones and L. G. Griffis, eds.

LY
9  Reston, VA: ASCE.
10  Baskaran, A. 1992. “Review of design guidelines for pressure equalized rainscreen walls.”

N
11  Internal Report No. 629. Institute for Research in Construction, National Research
12  Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

O
13  Baskaran, A., S. Molleti, S. Ko, and L. Shoemaker. 2012. “Wind uplift performance of
14 
n
composite metal roof assemblies.” J. Archit. Eng. 18 (1): 2–15.
io
15  Candelario, J. D., T. Stathopoulos, and I. Zisis. 2014. “Wind loading on attached canopies:
16  Codification study.” Struct. Eng. 140 (5), CID: 04014007.
at

17  Cheung, J. C. J., and W. H. Melbourne. 1986. “Wind loadings on porous cladding.” In Proc., 9th
m

18  Australian Conf. on Fluid Mechanics, Australasian Fluid Mechanics Society, Victoria,
Australia, 308.
or

19 
20  Cope, A., L. Crandell, D. Johnston, V. Kochkin, Z. Liu, L. Stevig, and T. Reinhold. 2012. “Wind
nf

21  loads on components of multi-layer wall systems with air-permeable exterior cladding.”
In Advances in Hurricane Engineering, C. P. Jones and L. G. Griffis, eds. Reston, VA:
rI

22 
23  ASCE, 238–257.
Fo

24  Davenport, A. G., D. Surry, and T. Stathopoulos. 1977. “Wind loads on low-rise buildings.”
25  Final Report on Phases I and II, BLWT-SS8. University of Western Ontario, London.
26  Davenport, A. G., D. Surry, and T. Stathopoulos. 1978. “Wind loads on low-rise buildings.”
27  Final Report on Phase III, BLWT-SS4. University of Western Ontario, London.
28  Gavanski, E., B. Kordi, G. A. Kopp, and P. J. Vickery. 2013. “Wind loads on roof sheathing of
29  houses.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 114: 106–121.
30  Haig, J. R. 1990. Wind loads on tiles for USA. Redland Technology, Horsham, West Sussex, UK.

27 
 
 1  Ho, T. C. E., D. Surry, D. Morrish, and G. A. Kopp. 2005. “The UWO contribution to the NIST
2  aerodynamic database for wind loads on low buildings. Part 1. Basic aerodynamic data
3  and archiving.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93: 1–30.
4  Irwin, P., C. Dragoiescu, M. Cicci, and G. Thompson. 2012. “Wind tunnel model studies of
5  aerodynamic lifting of roof pavers.” In Proc., ATC & SEI Conference on Advances in
6  Hurricane Engineering, Miami, FL.
7  https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784412626.043.
8  Kala, S., T. Stathopoulos, and K. Kumar. 2008. “Wind loads on rainscreen walls: Boundary-

LY
9  layer wind tunnel experiments.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 96(6-7): 1058–1073.
10  Kim, J. H., M. Moravej, E. J. Sutley, A. Chowdhury, and T. N. Dao. 2020. “Observations and

N
11  analysis of wind pressures on the floor underside of elevated buildings.” Eng. Struct.,.
12  Kopp, G. A. 2013. “Wind loads on low profile, tilted, solar arrays placed on large, flat, low-rise

O
13  building roofs.” J. Struct. Eng. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000825.
14 
n
Kopp, G., and E. Gavanski. 2012. “Effects of pressure equalization on the performance of
io
15  residential wall systems under extreme wind loads.” J. Struct. Eng. 138 (4): 526–538.
16  Kopp, G. A., and M. J. Morrison. 2014. “Component and cladding pressures and zones for the
at

17  roofs of low-rise buildings.” Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Report, University of
m

18  Western Ontario, London.

Macdonald, P. A., J. D. Holmes, and K. C. S. Kwok. 1990. “Wind loads on circular storage bins,
or

19 
20  silos and tanks. II. Effect of grouping.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 34 (1), 77–95.
nf

21  Macdonald, P. A., K. C. S. Kwok, and J. D. Holmes. 1988. “Wind loads on circular storage bins,
silos and tanks: 1. Point pressure measurements on isolated structures.” J. Wind Eng. Ind.
rI

22 
23  Aerodyn. 31 (2-3): 165–187.
Fo

24  Main, J. A., and W. P. Fritz. 2006. “Database-assisted design for wind: Concepts, software, and
25  examples for rigid and flexible buildings.” Building Science Series 180. National
26  Institute of Standards and Technology.
27  Mehta, K. C., and M. L. Levitan. 1998. “Field experiments for wind pressures.” Department of
28  Civil Engineering Progress Report, Texas Tech University.
29  Naeiji, A., M. Moravej, M. Matus, and I. Zisis. 2020. “Codification study of wind-induced loads
30  on canopies attached to mid-rise buildings.” Draft in preparation.

28 
 
 1  Peterka, J. A., and J. E. Cermak. 1975. “Wind pressures on buildings: Probability densities.” J.
2  Struct. Div. 101 (6): 1255–1267.
3  Peterka, J. A., J. E. Cermak, L. S. Cochran, B. C. Cochran, N. Hosoya, R. G. Derickson, C.
4  Harper, J. Jones, and B. Metz. 1997. “Wind uplift model for asphalt shingles.” J. Arch.
5  Eng. 3 (4): 147–155.
6  Saathoff, P. J., and T. Stathopoulos. 1992. “Wind loads on buildings with sawtooth roofs.” J.
7  Struct. Eng. 118 (2): 429–446.
8  Sabransky, I. J., and W. H. Melbourne. 1987. “Design pressure distribution on circular silos with

LY
9  conical roofs.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 26 (1): 65–84.
10  Sakib, F. A., T. Stathopoulos, and A. Bhowmick. n.d. “Wind-induced loads on canopies attached

N
11  on the walls of tall buildings.” Draft in preparation.
12  SBCCI (Southern Building Code Congress International). 1994. Standard building code.

O
13  Janesville, WI: SBCCI.
14 
n
St. Pierre, L. M., G. A. Kopp, D. Surry, and T. C. E. Ho. 2005. “The UWO contribution to the
io
15  NIST aerodynamic database for wind loads on low buildings: Part 2. Comparison of data
16  with wind load provisions.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93: 31–59.
at

17  Standards Australia. (2011). Structural design actions: Wind actions. AS/NZS 1170.2:2011.
m

18  North Sydney: Standards Australia.

Stathopoulos, T., and M. Dumitrescu-Brulotte. 1989. “Design recommendations for wind loading
or

19 
20  on buildings of intermediate height.” Can. J. Civil Eng. 16 (6): 910–916.
nf

21  Stathopoulos, T., and A. R. Mohammadian. 1986. “Wind loads on low buildings with mono-
sloped roofs.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 23: 81–97.
rI

22 
23  Stathopoulos, T., and P. Saathoff. 1991. “Wind pressures on roofs of various geometries.” J.
Fo

24  Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 38: 273–284.

25  Stathopoulos, T., and X. Zhu. 1988. “Wind pressures on buildings with appurtenances.” J. Wind
26  Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 31: 265–281.
27  Stathopoulos, T., and X. Zhu. 1990. “Wind pressures on buildings with mullions.” J. Struct. Eng.
28  116 (8): 2272–2291.
29  Stenabaugh, S. E., Y. Iida, G. A. Kopp, and P. Karava. 2015. “Wind loads on photovoltaic arrays
30  mounted on sloped roofs of low-rise building, parallel to the roof surface.” J. Wind Eng.
31  Indust. Aerodyn. 139 (4): 16–26.

29 
 
 1  Surry, D., and Stathopoulos, T. (1988). “The wind loading of buildings with monosloped roofs.”
2  Final report, BLWT-SS38. University of Western Ontario, London.
3  Taylor, T. J. 1991. “Wind pressures on a hemispherical dome.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 40
4  (2): 199–213.
5  Templin, J. T., and J. E. Cermak. 1978. “Wind pressures on buildings: Effect of mullions.”
6  Technical Report CER76-77JTT-JEC24. Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion Lab, Colorado
7  State University, Fort Collins.
8  Vickery, P. J., G. A. Kopp, and L. A. Twisdale Jr. 2011. “Component and cladding wind

LY
9  pressures on hip and gable roofs: Comparisons to the U.S. wind loading provisions.” 13th
10  International Conference on Wind Engineering, Amsterdam.

N
11  Zisis, I., and T. Stathopoulos. 2010. “Wind-induced pressures on patio covers.” Struct. Eng. 136
12  (9): 1172−1181.

O
13  Zisis, I., F. Raji, and J. D. Candelario. 2017. “Large-scale wind tunnel tests of canopies attached
14 
n
to low-rise buildings.” ASCE Journal of Architectural Engineering 23 (1).
io
15  doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000235.
16  Zisis, I., T. Stathopoulos, and J. D. Candelario. 2011. “Codification of wind loads on a patio
at

17  cover based on a parametric wind tunnel study.” In Proc., 13th Int. Conf. on Wind
m

18  Engineering, July 10−15, Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Multi-Science.

or

19 
20  OTHER REFERENCES (NOT CITED)
nf

21  Batts, M. E., M. R. Cordes, L. R. Russell, J. R. Shaver, and E. Simiu. 1980. “Hurricane wind
speeds in the United States.” NBS Building Science Series 124. Washington, DC:
rI

22 
23  National Bureau of Standards.
Fo

24  Best, R. J., and J. D. Holmes. 1978. “Model study of wind pressures on an isolated single-story
25  house.” Wind Engineering Report 3/78. James Cook University, North Queensland,
26  Australia.
27  Beste, F., and J. E. Cermak. 1996. “Correlation of internal and area-averaged wind pressures on
28  low-rise buildings.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Colloq. on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and
29  Applications, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg.

30 
 
 1  Chock, G., J. Peterka, and G. Yu. 2005. “Topographic wind speed-up and directionality factors
2  for use in the city and county of Honolulu building code.” In Proc., 10th Americas Conf.
3  on Wind Engineering, Baton Rouge, LA.
4  CSA Group. 2015. “Standard test method for the dynamic wind uplift resistance of vegetated
5  roof assemblies.” CSA A123.24-15. Toronto, ON: CSA Group.
6  Davenport, A. G., C. S. B. Grimmond, T. R. Oke, and J. Wieringa. 2000. “Estimating the
7  roughness of cities and sheltered country.” In Proc., 12th AMS Conf. on Applied
8  Climatology. Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society, 96–99.

LY
9  Eaton, K. J., and J. R. Mayne. 1975. “The measurement of wind pressures on two-story houses at
10  Aylesbury.” J. Indust. Aerodyn. 1 (1): 67–109.

N
11  Ellingwood, B. 1981. “Wind and snow load statistics for probabilistic design.” J. Struct. Div. 107
12  (7): 1345–1350.

O
13  ESDU (Engineering Sciences Data Unit). 1990. “Strong winds in the atmospheric boundary
14 
n
layer. Part 1: Mean hourly wind speeds.” Item no. 82026, with Amendments A to C.
io
15  London: ESDU.
16  Ho, E. 1992. “Variability of low building wind lands.” Doctoral dissertation, University of
at

17  Western Ontario, London.

m

18  Marshall, R. D. 1977. “The measurement of wind loads on a full-scale mobile home.” NBSIR
77-1289. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards.
or

19 
20  McDonald, J. R. 1983. “A methodology for tornado hazard probability assessment.”
nf

21  NUREG/CR3058. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Peterka, J. A., and S. Shahid. 1993. “Extreme gust wind speeds in the U.S.” In Proc., 7th US Nat.
rI

22 
23  Conf. on Wind Engineering, Gary Hart, ed. International Association for Wind
Fo

24  Engineering, Kanagawa, Japan, vol. 2, 503–512.

25  Powell, M. D. 1980. “Evaluations of diagnostic marine boundary-layer models applied to
26  hurricanes.” Monthly Weather Rev. 108 (6): 757–766.
27  Sataka, N., K. Suda, T. Arakawa, A. Sasaki, and Y. Tamura. 2003. “Damping evaluation using
28  full-scale data of buildings in Japan.” J. Struct. Eng. 129 (4): 470–477.
29  SPRI (Single Ply Roofing Industry). 2013. “Wind design standard for vegetative roofing
30  systems.” ANSI/SPRI RP-14. Waltham, MA: Single Ply Roofing Industry.

31 
 
 1  Stathopoulos, T. 1981. “Wind loads on eaves of low buildings.” J. Struct. Div. 107 (10): 1921–
2  1934.
3  Stathopoulos, T., and H. Luchian. 1990. “Wind pressures on building configurations with
4  stepped roofs.” Can. J. Civil Eng. 17 (4), 569–577.
5  Stathopoulos, T., and H. Luchian. 1992. “Wind-induced forces on eaves of low buildings.” In
6  Proc., Wind Engineering Society Inaugural Conf., Cambridge, United Kingdom.
7  Stathopoulos, T., D. Surry, and A. G. Davenport. 1979. “Wind-induced internal pressures in low
8  buildings.” In Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Wind Engineering, J. E. Cermak, ed., Colorado

LY
9  State University, Fort Collins.
10  Stathopoulos, T., K. Wang, and H. Wu. 1999. “Wind standard provisions for low building gable

N
11  roofs revisited.” In Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Wind Engineering, J. E. Cermak, ed.,
12  Balkema, Netherlands.

O
13  Stathopoulos, T., K. Wang, and H. Wu. 2000. “Proposed new Canadian wind provisions for the
14 
n
design of gable roofs.” Can. J. Civil Eng. 27 (5): 1059–1072.
io
15  Stathopoulos, T., K. Wang, and H. Wu. 2001. “Wind pressure provisions for gable roofs of
16  intermediate roof slope.” Wind and Structures 4(2).
at

17  Stubbs, N., and D. C. Perry. 1993. “Engineering of the building envelope: To do or not to do.” In
m

18  Hurricanes of 1992: Lessons learned and implications for the future, R. A. Cook and M.
Sotani, eds. Reston, VA: ASCE Press, 10–30.
or

19 
20  Surry, D., R. B. Kitchen, and A. G. Davenport. 1977. “Design effectiveness of wind tunnel
nf

21  studies for buildings of intermediate height.” Can. J. Civil Eng. 4 (1): 96–116.
Twisdale, L. A., P. J. Vickery, and A. C. Steckley. 1996. Analysis of hurricane windborne debris
rI

22 
23  impact risk for residential structures. Bloomington, IL: State Farm Mutual Automobile
Fo

24  Insurance Companies.

25 

32