Review

Advances in Structural Engineering

2023, Vol. 0(0) 1–28
A comprehensive review on estimation of © The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
equivalent static wind loads on long-span sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13694332231190706
journals.sagepub.com/home/ase
roofs

Wuyi Sun1,2 , Xiaomei Wang1, Daojun Dong1, Meixia Zhang1  and Qiusheng Li2

Abstract
Equivalent static wind load (ESWL) is helpful information for designing wind-sensitive structures since it converts complex
wind-induced structural dynamic analysis into a simplified static analysis and facilitates combination of other loads or actions
in structural designs. In recent years, there have been a growing number of long-span roof structures, most of which are
sensitive to wind actions. Indeed, the accurate determination of ESWLs has been a primary concern in their wind-resistant
design. Although some significant progress has been made on this topic, there are various issues to be addressed or
improved due to a variety of reasons. With the further development of long-span roofs, there will be higher requirements
for their ESWLs. This paper first combs through the existing representative methods depending on wind-induced
structural responses (WISRs) and wind-induced structural stability (WISS), where the ESWLs linked with the former are
the mainstream and the ones concerned with the latter are still somewhat in their initial stages of development. In each
broad category, some momentous tactics of mathematics and mechanics are utilized to derive different methods. In the
conclusion, this paper finally summarizes the existing achievements, highlights the technical challenges that hinder the
current methods from being widely adopted and proposes some latent solutions for the future research. This review paper
is anticipated to be a comprehensive reference for researchers and professionals in this field of study.

Keywords
long-span roof, equivalent static wind loads (ESWLs), wind-induced structural responses (WISRs), wind-induced structural
stability (WISS)

Introduction Because of their architectural, structural, and econom-

Equivalence thought, which can effectively change a
complex process or system into its simple substitution in
conjunction with transformation theory under certain prin-
ciples, is a topic of much attention in various fields. In
structural wind engineering, this thought can be embodied
by equivalent static wind loads (ESWLs). Stochastic dy-
namic analysis of structures is often much more intricate
than deterministic static analysis, the current structural de-
signs, thereby, often require complicated random dynamic
wind loads on structures to be modeled as their ESWLs for
simplifying structural designs or analyses-the ESWLs can be
combined with other static loads or actions and easily used
by engineers during the design of structures (Frontini et al.,
2022). Because the treatment is available for evaluating
structural dynamic performance indirectly, an admirably deft
bond between structural static and dynamic analyses is
bridged to reflect the dynamic-static combination idea, one
of important ideas in structural engineering.
ical superiorities, long-span roofs are often highly preferred
for some large-scale public buildings such as gymnasia,
museums, city halls, airports, cinemas, theatres and so on.
It can be firmly believed from massive reports that there has
been a growing trend in the use of long-span roofs
worldwide. In terms of these structures themselves, they are
generally featured by light mass, great flexibility, little
damping, low and dense natural frequency, and the cou-
pling effect between different structural modes, as well as
their varied and irregular structural shapes (Fu et al., 2015).
1
Faculty of Engineering, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China
2
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of
Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Corresponding author:
Qiusheng Li, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City
University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong,
Email: bcqsli@cityu.edu.hk
2 Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)
Meanwhile, as far as the external environment is con-
cerned, such roofs are commonly low rise and in the at-
mospheric boundary layer with relatively large wind speed
change and high turbulence, which will cause the structures
to experience complicated flows, wind pressure distribu-
tions and aerodynamic actions (Fu et al., 2015, Holmes,
2007). Based on the two characteristics, these structures are
inherently sensitized to wind excitations which usually
dominate their structural designs, their resulting dynamic
wind effects are significant but changeable without lucid
rules to follow (Holmes, 2007). In the structural designs,
the accurate ESWLs determination is believed to play a
crucial role (Chen and Zhou, 2007, Holmes, 2007,
Uematsu et al., 1997a, 1997b, Zhou et al., 1999). The
ESWLs research of long-span roofs has been a hot spot in
structural wind engineering for quite a while, since new
challenges keep pouring out despite some encouraging
achievements achieved.
This paper intends to present a critical review of the
representative ESWLs methods for long-span roofs, fixing
attention on their computational contents, advantages and
disadvantages. At the time of designing structural ele-
ments, it can be known from mechanics that when they
work properly, their strength, stiffness and stability should
be ensured to accommodate to different requirements. Most
of the ESWLs are estimated based on wind-induced
structural responses (WISRs)-internal forces (or stresses)
and displacements. Put differently, they direct at the
strength and stiffness questions under wind loads to a
certain extent in the structural designs. On the other hand,
the ESWLs of some specific roofs are mainly subject to
wind-induced structural stability (WISS), for example,
single-layer space shells. In the existing methods, the
WISRs-based ESWLs will predefine one or multiple
WISRs, instead the WISS-based ESWLs require one in-
stability mode instead of WISRs, which will need different
mathematical and mechanical principles. The computa-
tional results of the ESWLs hailing from WISRs and WISS
for a same structure can be considerably distinct from each
other (Li and Tamura, 2004, 2005). According to the above
three aspects, the ESWLs are categorized into the ones
based on the structural WISRs and WISS in this paper.
Finally, what have been achieved are summarized, and
some beneficial suggestions driving the future research
attempts are provided in the conclusion. Consequently, this
review paper is expected to be a comprehensive reference
for researchers and professionals involved in the wind-
resistant analyses or designs of long-span roof structures
and even other wind-sensitive structures.
The methods based on WISRs
It is often the case that ESWLs are correlated with WISRs.
In this paper, the ESWLs based on WISRs are the static
loads, under which structural responses (i.e., ESWLs-
induced structural responses or ESWLs-ISRs for short.)
are theoretically required to equal the preselected target
WISRs (normally the peak dynamic responses under the
complicated random dynamic wind loads on structures)
(Chen and Zhou, 2007, Frontini et al., 2022). The validity
of WISRs-based ESWLs needs to be identified, one ad-
mitted way is to rate the errors between ESWLs-ISRs and
actual target WISRs which will be mentioned many times
later. There is no doubt that the smaller errors will bring the
more satisfying ESWLs.
In structural engineering, there are two generic ways to
make the loads on structures equivalent: One is to replace
complex force systems with their simple ones according to
the three elements of vectors (magnitude, direction, and
action location). The other is to first compute the structural
responses under complex force systems, then get the
structural simple force systems reversely based on specially
aimed known responses.
From mechanics, it is often required to solve structural
responses under given loads, but less work is done to
determine their loads by known responses. If the former is
mathematically taken as a direct problem, the latter can be
considered as an inverse problem. In mathematics, a unique
solution will be solved to a direct problem. Nonetheless, an
inverse problem is likely to own many and even infinitely
many solutions, increasing its complexity. For applica-
bility, an inverse problem is desired to have a unique so-
lution, this can be done with some specific constraints-the
initial conditions in mathematics or the boundary condi-
tions in mechanics, the solutions differ from constraint to
constraint. Finding the WISRs-based ESWLs can be
conceived of as an inverse question with the WISRs being
the initial conditions. This will give rise to a bulk of ESWLs
for different WISRs or a same WISR, for which extra care
should be taken.
So far, the majority of ESWLs are based on WISRs.
Several methods are applicable for estimating the ESWLs
of high-rise buildings whose WISRs are usually dominated
by the first structural mode, with the corresponding ESWLs
being aimed at a single target WISR in general. For most of
long-span roofs, there is a need to involve multiple
structural modes. However, a single monitored target
WISR may be insufficient to characterize their dynamic
effects and ESWLs. It is thus necessary to consider how to
realize the equivalence of multiple peak WISRs. ESWLs
can be divided into two categories: Single target and
multiple target ESWLs (Frontini et al., 2022), this section
will enlarge on their applications in long-span roofs.
The single target equivalent methods
The single target equivalent methods mean that a whole
structure’s ESWLs are solved using one preselected target
Sun et al.
WISR. According to the evolution of these methods, this
subsection includes: (1) The ESWLs based on the gust
response factor (GRF); and (2) The ESWLS based on the
load-response-correlation (LRC) method.
The methods based on the GRF method. It was not until the
1960s that ESWLs were budded in the wind-resistant
studies of high-rise buildings. Davenport (Davenport,
1961, 1967) pioneered the idea of gust loading factor
(GLF), and leant towards the GRF for more precision (The
GLF and GRF are nominated as GRF without a deliberate
discrimination in this paper), marking the advent of
ESWLs:
^ri ¼ G  ri (1a)
G ¼ 1 þ g  σ ri =ri (1b)
where ^ri , ri are the peak and mean values of a target WISR
time history-ri(t) in a time duration, respectively; G and g
denote the GRF and the statical peak factor with a given
reliability level in this paper, respectively; and σ ri is the
standard deviation or the root-mean-square (RMS) value of
ri(t).
In order to predict the structural dynamic wind loads, the
ESWLs on a high rise building are expressed as the product
of the mean wind loads and a specific G, yielding the along-
wind structural buffeting responses. In particular, the
structural top displacement GRF is defined as one entire
structure’s GRF under the premise that the wind loads and/
or the WISRs abide by the Gaussian probability
distribution.
The approach is handy for a structure with dominant
wind-induced drag, in which it is assumed that the wind-
induced resonance is in a single mode of vibration (the first
structural mode) whose shape varies linearly above ground
(Frontini et al., 2022, Isyumov, 2012). This assumption
catches the essence of the dynamic wind process for most
buildings, and provides a manageable framework for ex-
tending the procedure to higher structural modes kindled by
buffeting-induced drag loads (Isyumov, 2012). The GRF
allows a designer to estimate the ESWLs through a constant
amplification factor- G, evaluated on the basis of the mean
and peak displacements, and compulsively assumed equal
to the ratio between the peak and mean values of an internal
force (Frontini et al., 2022).
Due to its simplicity and convenience in application-the
primary advantage, this highly profiled method was also
acclaimed in determining the ESWLs on long-span roofs at
one time. Several researchers (Uematsu et al., 1996, 1997b,
1997a, 1999, 2008, Marukawa et al., 1993, Uematsu and
Yamada, 2002) investigated the GRFs for the structural
frames of some flat roofs with regular, symmetrical, and
simple geometries, as well as the closed forms regardless of
3
interior pressure. From structural point of view, these roofs
can be hypothetically supported by a series of simple
beams arranged in parallel and connected with one another
collar beams, or act like an elastic plate under wind loads.
The wind-induced oscillations of these structural frames
(beams and plates), thus, may be governed by their fun-
damental mode and frequency. Building upon the wind-
tunnel measurements for the first modal forces acting on the
roofs, and upon a statistical analysis over the dynamic
WISRs of these structural frames, they first conceptualized
a unified GRF (Marukawa et al., 1993, Uematsu et al.,
1996, 1997b, 1997a, 1999, 2008, Uematsu and Yamada,
2002):
G ¼ 1 þ g  rF  Rm (2a)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi .pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
g ¼ 2lnðf1 T Þ þ 0:5772 2lnðf1 T Þ (2b)
. 
~ F1 C F1 
rF ¼ C (2c)
where C F1 and C ~ F1 stand for the mean and RMS values of
the first modal force coefficient-CF1(t), with their associ-
ated ratio γF; and Rm is the resonant magnification factor,
which can be solved by (Uematsu et al., 1996, 1997b,
1997a, 1999, 2008, Uematsu and Yamada, 2002):
 12
π f1  SF1 ðf1 Þ
Rm ¼ 1þ (2d)
4η1 σ 2F1
where σ F1 is the RMS value of the first modal force F1(t);
SF1(f1) represents the power spectrum of F1(t) relative to
the first natural frequency f1; η1 is the critical damping ratio
of the first mode; and T is time duration of 600s.
For different structures, the studies of (Marukawa et al.,
1993, Uematsu et al., 1997a, 1997b, 1999, Uematsu and
Yamada, 2002) crystallized rF and Rm into a series of
empirical equations relying on the wind parameters (tur-
bulence intensity of approaching flows, wind velocity, and
wind directions) and structural parameters (roof geometry,
structural frame location, critical damping ratio, funda-
mental frequency and mode shape), which are made into
Table 1.
The above studies condense the ESWLs as regards a big
class of roofs into the parametric analysis method. The
most striking feature of the parametric analysis methods is
that on the basis of wind tunnel test, the ESWLs expres-
sions of a big class of roofs fall back on some structural and
wind parameters to facilitate actual engineering applica-
tions, without having to do a lot of tedious calculations for
every structure. Nevertheless, they suggest that the ESWLs
only target at the displacement GRF. In practice, long-span
roofs have multiple kinds of WISRs that matter as much as
displacement in most cases, such as macroscopic internal
forces (bending moment, shear force, axial force and
4 Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)

Table 1. The Parameters in equation (2a–2d).

Empirical equations
Structural
f1 SF1 ðf1 Þ
Roof model and coordinate system frames rF σ 2F1
or Rm Explanations
 
A series of L f1  SF1 ðf1 Þ 1. 1) the edge region (ξ/H=0.5
rF ¼ LB Kl exp γ and θ=0o): γ=0.1; L/H≤(L/H)
simple beams H σ 2F1
arranged in  β cr=6; k0=0.15; k1=5.0;
parallel and Kl ¼ k0 þ k1 I2uH fH l0=0.95; l1=0.3
¼A
connected LB ¼ l0 þ l1 ðξ=HÞ2 UH 2) The interior region (ξ/H=0.5
with one and θ=90o): γ=0.15; L/H≤(L/
another collar H)cr=4; k0=0.2; k1=3.5; l0=1;
(B=L) (Uematsu et al., 1997a) beams l1=0
2. f*=f1H/UH≥0.4 and L/H=3∼6:
1) ξ/H=0.5 and θ=0o:
A=0.012, β=3; 2) ξ/H=0.5
and θ=90o: A=0.036, β=2.3
3. UH and IuH =the wind speed
and the turbulance intensity
at roof height H, respectively
  2
A thin flat plate D f1  SF1 ðf1 Þ 1. B/H=width-to-height ratio,
simply r F ¼ K l þ 0:043 σ 2F1 and D/H=depth-to-height
H
supported on    β ratio, where B and D
4 edges B fH shoulder the roof spans in
exp 0:12 ¼A
H UH the across-wind and along-
wind directions,
Kl ¼ 0:09 þ 3:8I2uH respectively. B/H≤6 and D/
(Uematsu et al., 1997b) H≥2
2. f*=f1H/UH≥0.4 and IuH≥0.3:
A=0.014, β=3.5
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
A series of rF ¼ 2:2I2uH þ 0:19 Rm ¼ rB þ rR 1. f*=f1H/UH≥0.4 and L/H>1
simple beams 2. rB and rR represent the quasi-
in L direction static and resonant WISRs,
Rm is only raised
conceptually
(Marukawa et al., 1993)
Circular flat roofs with height H and A thin elastic rF ¼ 1:71I2uH f1  SF1 ðf1 Þ 1. The span-to-height ratio (D/
span D (Uematsu et al., 1999) plate simply   σ 2F1 H) ranges from 1 to 8
supported on exp 0:2 D þ 0:15  β 2. η1=0.02
edge H fH 3. f*=f1D/UH>1 and
¼A
UH IuH=0.12∼0.26:
A=0.11IuHln(D/
H+0.22)+0.01, β=2.7
A thin elastic rF ¼ 3:4I2uH f1  SF1 ðf1 Þ 1. The span to height ratio D/H
plate simply   σ 2F1 ranges from 1 to 5.33
supported on exp 0:04 D þ 0:12 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!β 2. η1=0.02
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
edge H f DH 3. f * ¼ DH=UH > 0:7
¼A 4. 1) Flow I: A=0.012, β=3.7; 2)
UH
Flow II: A=0.015, β=3.7.
(Uematsu and Yamada, 2002) Flows I and II are for typical
open country and urban
terrains, respectively

torque). This method is originally capable of suiting any identical to the displacement-related ones (Zhou et al.,
WISRs, but it might bring an inaccurate estimation if the 1999, Zhou and Kareem, 2001, Kareem and Zhou,
displacement GRF is imposed on any category of WISRs, 2003). However, the relationship between displacement
because the ESWLs for any other WISRs are doomed to be and other WISRs is not necessarily linear. Thus, the
Sun et al.
ESWLs for other WISRs save the ESWLs of displacement
should be considered.
The ESWLs of beam-supporting flat roofs are sup-
posed to vary with their various maximum WISRs
(Tamura et al., 1992), because of the foregoing inverse
question’s characteristics. The various maximum WISRs
will offer different constraints to result in fickle ESWLs.
Tamura et al. (1992) derived the GRFs of some simply
supported rigid and elastic beams based on the maximum
bending moment, shear force and displacement, showing
the diversity between the different GRFs for one same
structure.
Due to the disparity in cross-sectional dimensions of
structural members, it is demanding to judge the most
unfavorable members only by the internal forces in view
of the strength design theory in structures (Ma et al.,
2022). Among structural responses, microscopic stresses
are also important in addition to the above macroscopic
internal forces, the corresponding ESWLs are worthy of
study. Having no regard for internal pressure, the ESWLs
of a rigidly jointed single-layer high-rise dome can be
estimated by its GRFs of the axial and bending stresses,
the same regime, however, would be thwarted for a low-
rise dome (Uematsu et al., 2001). Shortly after (Uematsu
et al., 2001), Uematsu et al. (2002) further renovated the
WISRs and the ESWLs of these domes. In their work, the
dynamic WISRs can be evaluated by quasi-static analysis,
because the resonance effect is relatively small. In the
common procedure for structural designs, the extreme
fiber stress on the member cross section is the most
important response for the roofs. Since the GRFs for the
single-layer latticed domes in Figure 1 have some in
common with the ones (see Table 1) in Uematsu and
Yamada (2002), Uematsu et al. (2002), after some
modification for Uematsu and Yamada (2002), threw out
the stress GRF empirical formulas in parameterization for
the structural frames:
 
8 h h
> 4ðCmax  1Þ þ 1:0 f or 0 ≤ ≤ 0:25
Gdome < D D
¼  
Gflat >
: h
Cmax f or 0:25 ≤ ≤ 1:0
D βzi ¼
(3a)
 
8 f h
< 1:0 þ 4 D f or 0 ≤ D ≤ 0:1
> 2
Cmax ¼
  (3b)
>
: f h 2
1:8  4 f or 0:1 < ≤ 0:2
D D
where Gflat is the GRFs in Uematsu and Yamada (2002). D/
H≤7 is asked here to compute γF in Uematsu and Yamada
5
Figure 1. The roof geometry (side view) (Uematsu et al., 2002).
Note: f/D=0.05, 0.10, 0.20; h/D=0, 1/16, …, 16/16.
(2002); for the quasi-static response, Rm=1 in Uematsu and
Yamada (2002); and g=4 in equation (2b) for these roofs.
An exploration regarding the stress GRFs of an open-
able and a closed truss roofs was also done by Ma et al.
(2022). The GRFs of the structural bars and beams are
clearly found to fluctuate greatly for different target
stresses, which raises a confusing problem for the GRF
method to select one single equivalent target considering
the combination of different load effects. In the above-
mentioned scattered GRFs, the largest absolute bar stress of
each roof is taken as their own equivalent target to calculate
their GRFs and corresponding ESWLs, in which (1) the
two ESWLs-ISRs corresponding to the target WISRs
match well with their respective target WISRs; and (2) the
most remaining bar ESWLs-ISRs are generally comparable
to their corresponding target WISRs, especially for the
larger bar stresses; but (3) the ESWLs screw up in several
beams with larger stress, whose ESWLs-ISRs bear a big
departure from their target WISRs, requiring additional
analyses.
The method of Ma et al. (2022) taps the GRF method
in the specified roofs, ushering in a hope to find a suitable
target WISR in complicated long-span roofs. However,
the method will disable itself when selecting one target
WISR morbidly. Therefore, it needs specific analysis on
determining the target WISR from the perspective of
overall evaluation of this method in Ma et al. (2022).
Lou et al. (2000) managed to explore the WISRs of a
flexible square flat roof supported on a closed building, a
discussion was made of the nodal GRF at node i:
Pti Pdi þ Psi Pdi
¼ ¼1þ (4a)
Psi Psi Psi
b a mi σ ai
Pdi ¼ G (4b)
C i Ai V
Psi ¼ (4c)
where Pti, Pdi and Psi are the total wind-induced force, the
dynamic wind force and the static wind force, respectively;
b a = the peak acceleration coefficient approximately set to
G
3.0; σ ai and mi are the acceleration RMS value and the roof
6 Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)
mass, respectively; C i and Ai equal to the local mean wind
pressure coefficient given by wind tunnel test and the roof
surface area, respectively; and V is the mean wind speed at
the roof’s height.
The result of Lou et al. (2000) indicated that the GRF
distributions on the whole surface made up a curved surface
resembling the first structural mode. From equation (4b),
this method entrusts itself to nodal acceleration rather than
internal forces or stresses, affirming that the variability of
WISRs results in variable ESWLs.
It should be noted that the WISRs in the above long-
span roofs are generally dominated by their first structural
modes. In this circumstance, every node in the structural
frames almost synchronizes with each other to its maxi-
mum value as a structure vibrates. Because the fluctuating
and mean displacements in the first structural modes are
merely included in deriving the formulas, the displacement
GRF is constant for an entire structural frame (Zhou et al.,
1999, Kareem and Zhou, 2003). The GRF of an isolated
WISR in the traditional GRF method of Davenport
(Davenport, 1961, 1967) is marketed to that of an entire
structural frame, saving the trouble of determining a hand-
picked and representative WISR to reflect the ESWLs on an
overall roof. In this sense, the narrow definition of the
traditional GRF method is gifted with a broader meaning.
In effect, many long-span roofs are closely spaced in
natural frequencies, so their WISRs will be affected by
multi-order structural modes (Uematsu et al., 1997). At this
point, the multi-mode participation perhaps paralyzes all
nodes in the structural frames from arriving at their maxima
synchronously during structural motion, and it will become
rather stiff to preselect an accurate displacement and even
one other WISR.
Among long-span roofs, the free roofs usually sup-
ported only by columns also gain widespread popularity.
They seem to be more vulnerable to wind loads than those
enclosed buildings, since wind loads will attack their top
and bottom surfaces directly (Uematsu et al., 2007, 2013,
2014, 2015, Uematsu and Yamamura, 2019). For some
gable, troughed and mono-sloped free-standing canopy
roofs, cylindrical free-standing canopy roofs and hyper-
bolic paraboloid free roofs, if they are assumed to be rigid
(quasi-static) and simply propped against four corner
columns, the wind-induced column axial forces can thus
be regarded as the most important load effect to discuss
their design wind loads (Uematsu et al., 2007, 2013, 2014,
2015, Uematsu and Yamamura, 2019).
For the three kinds of roofs which are symmetrical in
appearance and solid without porosity: (1) The hyper-
bolic paraboloid free roofs; (2) The gable, troughed and
mono-sloped free-standing canopy roofs; and (3) The
cylindrical free-standing canopy roofs, Uematsu et al.
(Uematsu et al. 2007, 2014) and Uematsu and Yamamura
(2019) sketched their design wind force coefficients in
different zones that can be easily converted to the
structural ESWLs:
γCNW 0
CNW * ¼ (5a)
Gf
γCNC0
CNC * ¼ (5b)
Gf
γCNL0
CNL * ¼ (5c)
Gf
where CNW * and CNL * are the design wind force coeffi-
cients over the windward and leeward halves for the roofs
(1) and (2) or the zones for the roof (3) (see Figure 2); C *
NC
is the value in the central zone of the roof (3); CNW0, CNC0
and CNL0 specify the basic values, and are uniformly
distributed on the above-mentioned halves or zones. CNW0,
CNC0 and CNL0 linearly combine the aerodynamic lift and
moment coefficients at the specific wind directions pro-
ducing the maximum tension and compression in the
columns (the specific wind directions are schematically
illustrated in Figure 2.), and the aerodynamic lift and
moment coefficients result from the even distribution of
their corresponding concentrated forces within their re-
spective zones; γ, the correction factor to consider that the
axial force in the column may become the maximum for an
oblique wind different from the azimuths in Figure 2, is
defined as the ratio of the actual peak value to the predicted
value from CNW0, CNC0 and CNL0; and Gf is the gust effect
factor investigating the dynamic effect of flow turbulence
on the column axial forces, and defined as the ratio of the
maximum or minimum axial force to the mean value in-
duced in the column.
For the roofs with the same shapes as those of (Uematsu
et al., 2007, 2014) but with holes, the structural porosity
will decrease their wind loads significantly (Uematsu et al.,
2013, 2015). When determining the structural ESWLs, a
reduction factor R, which is defined by the ratio of the
C * or C * for the porous roofs to that for the corre-
NW NL
sponding solid roofs and formulated as one simple expo-
nential function of porosity, will be supplemented to
consider the porosity’s effect. That is, the CNW * and CNL *
of the porous roofs can be provided by the counterparts for
the solid roofs multiplied by the R.
The comparisons of the proposed methods of (Uematsu
et al., 2007, 2013, 2014, 2015, Uematsu and Yamamura,
2019) with the relevant standards were made to confirm
their validity.
If CNW0 (and/or CNC0, CNL0) and γ/Gf (or Rγ/Gf)
take over the mean wind loads and the GRF in the
traditional GRF method, respectively, the method of
Sun et al.
Figure 2. The specific wind directions that can produce the maximum load effect and the zoning of three kinds of roofs (θ=0o or 90o for
the roof (1), θ=0o or 180o for the roof (2), and θ=0o or 45o for the roof (3). (a) The roof (1) (Uematsu et al., 2014). (b) The roof (2)
(Uematsu et al., 2007). (c) The roof (3) (Uematsu and Yamamura, 2019)
(Uematsu et al., 2007, 2013, 2014, 2015, Uematsu and
Yamamura, 2019) can be roughly incorporated into the
GRF method. It is still fed with the maximum tension and
compression WISRs, but avert selecting one right WISR on
the roofs painstakingly that is handed over to the WISR in
columns, which widen the traditional GRF method. In the
meantime, it considers the influences of the structure ge-
ometry (the rise to span ratios, the roof slops, the porosity
and the structural symmetry) and the wind fields (the wind
directions and the turbulence), the simple parametric ex-
pressions are put into full use. Nonetheless, it is necessary to
discuss whether the ESWLs derived from the axial force of
the columns can secure the roofs against failure.
The above methods are riveted on linear structures,
failing to consider the effect of structural nonlinearity. With
the increase of complexity and lightness of structures,
moderate nonlinearities in some specific structures need to
be incorporated, otherwise, the GRFs that exclusively take
into account linear effects will discount the safety of these
structures (Kasperski, 1992, Kasperski and Niemann,
1992). At some positions of several cable-suspended and
cable-supported membrane roofs-two sorts of typical
nonlinear tensioning structures, Suzuki et al. (1997), Shen
and Yang (1999) and Zhou et al. (2013) probed the GRFs of
multiple kinds of control WISRs, and conceived some
empirical and parametric equations or values relevant to
weak geometrical nonlinearities manifested in Tables 2 and
3 and Figure 3, which broaden the GRF’s use scope.
7
Being an established approach, the GRF method still
suffers from the other limitations: (1) The ESWLs are
implied to display the same shapes as mean wind loads if a
structure only has a GRF, which is not true in some cases
(Holmes, 2002, Li and Tamura, 2004, 2005); (2) It falls
short in the cases of a zero mean load or WISR, where the
ESWLs may not be appropriately defined (Chen and
Zhou, 2007, Zhou et al., 1999, 2000, Kareem and
Zhou, 2003); (3) It will stumble over WISS analysis, a
bigger GRF may pose a lower safety (Li and Tamura,
2004, 2005, Gu and Huang, 2015); (4) If the ESWLs are
intended for a particular WISR of interest, the GRFs may
be quite distinct from different WISRs for the structures
with similar geometric configurations but disparate
structural systems, which indicates that the ESWLs given
by a single GRF is incapable of providing the adequate
predictions of all peak WISRs (Chen and Zhou, 2007);
and (5) Under this method, the wind speed, pressure and
resulting WISR have been generally treated as stationary
random processes, which is appropriate for the large-scale
wind systems whose wind process is reasonably sta-
tionary, but for the small-scale non-stationary wind
events, such as thunderstorm winds, the GRF WISR will
greatly under-estimate the actual WISR (Edmund et al.,
2002). It should also be recognized that the stationary
assumption nearly exists in the following methods. As
such, the method may fall into disfavour in long-span
roofs, and call for the improved measures.
8 Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)

Table 2. The GRFs for the Cable-suspended Roof (Suzuki et al., 1997).

The roof and the positions The GRFs

1/4 span 1/2 span 3/4 span

The axial forces 1.8 2.0 1.8
The displacements 5.6 3.6 6.5

Table 3. The GRFs for the Hyperbolic Paraboloid Cable nets (Shen and Yang, 1999).

The GRFs

The roofs The maximum WISRs The minimum WISRs

With elliptical plans The node displacements & the inner forces of pre-tensioning 2.3 -0.3
cables
The inner forces of main cables 2:2 þ 400
0:4
ðμz W0  300Þ 0:4 þ 400
0:4
ðμz W0  300Þ
With rhomboic The node displacements 2.2 -0.2
plans The inner forces of pre-tensioning cables 2.3 -0.4
The inner forces of main cables 2.8 -1.6

Note: W0(N/m2)=the reference wind pressure; μz=the exposure factor for wind load.

Figure 3. The GRFs for the cable-supported membrane roof (Zhou et al., 2013). (a) The nodes and the links. (b) The displacement,
stress, and cable force GRFs.

The methods based on the LRC method. In the ESWLs on
long-span roofs, the LRC-based methods boost their de-
velopments. This section will introduce the LRC method,
and then followed by the ESWLs based on the LRC
method.
The LRC method. The WISRs-based ESWLs are
often bound up with the makeup of WISRs. By means of
the characteristics of along-wind WISR spectra of
structures, structural dynamic WISRs are generally
made up of mean, background, and resonant components
Sun et al.
(Davenport, 1967, 1995, Dyrbye and Hansen, 1997), first
shedding light on an opportunity to fragment structural
ESWLs into static (i.e., mean), quasi-static (i.e., back-
ground) and resonant contributions (Repetto and Solari,
2004).
By appealing to the WISR spectra and to the hypothesis
that every WISR complies with Gaussian probability
distribution, Kasperski (1992) and Kasperski and Niemann
(1992) initiated a whole structure’s ESWLs for one special
peak target WISR ^ri , in which the kth ESWL value is
expressed as:
PEk ¼ Pk þ gρri Pk  σ Pk (6)
where Pk denotes the mean ESWL value which can be
directly taken from averaging the kth wind load time
history Pk(t); σ Pk takes the RMS value of Pk(t); and ρri Pk
arises from the correlation coefficient between the WISR
time history of ri(t) corresponding to ^ri and Pk(t).
For being more understandable, the column vector
{PE,f} fashioned from all the fluctuating ESWL values in
PEk, taking discrete structural systems as examples, will
bend towards a quotient:
g Cf ðIi Þ
T where {fk} and λk refer to the kth POD mode and ei-
PE, f ¼ (7)
^ri, B
where [Cf] takes on the covariance matrix of fluctuating
wind loads; (Ii) takes the row vector corresponding to ^ri out
of structural influence function matrix in this paper; ()T
produces a matrix’s or vector’s transpose in this paper; and
^ri, B is in charge of the background component in ^ri (the
background WISR for short in this paper).
The method (Kasperski, 1992, Kasperski and Niemann,
1992) is commonly known as the load response correlation
(LRC) method hereafter referred to as the traditional LRC
(T-LRC) method.
Being developed in wind tunnel tests of rigid low-rise
buildings (Holmes, 1992, Holmes et al., 1995, Ginger et al.,
2000), the T-LRC method can determine the relevant
ESWLs from the mean and background WISRs, even
without regard to the possibility of resonant amplification
(Chen and Zhou, 2007, Holmes, 2002, Ginger et al., 2000).
It opens a brand-new research era grounding the anticipated
background ESWLs of fluctuating wind loads on solid
mathematical and mechanical theories (Holmes, 2002). To
be specific, for a desirable peak WISR, it moulds a most
probable load distribution with a distinct physical meaning
(Kasperski and Niemann, 1992, Chen and Kareem, 2004).
However, when there are a vast quantity of wind load
time histories on a structure to consider, all the correlation
coefficients will be computationally time-consuming and
challenging, it is not required to calculate them directly
(Holmes, 1992, Fu et al., 2008). Furthermore, the method
9
just tosses out a basic orientation, how to find out some
more feasible, accurate and targeted methods is notewor-
thy. Consequently, some improved LRC methods with an
emphasis on the fluctuating ESWLs, which can afford a
good reference for the ESWLs on long-span roofs, should
need an exquisite carving.
For rigid low-rise buildings, with the aid of the POD
method in (Holmes, 1990), Holmes (1992) and Chen and
Zhou (2007) extended the T-LRC method to mainly in-
stitute the fluctuating ESWLs for the RMS component of
one ^ri (i.e., the RMS WISR for short in this paper). Because
the correlation coefficients in the T-LRC method can be
devolved to the covariance matrix of fluctuating wind
loads, the POD method shines here. The fluctuating
ESWLs in this paper-{PE,f} is, hence, calculated as (Chen
and Zhou, 2007, Holmes, 1992):
X
K pffiffiffiffi
PE, f ¼g ck ffk g λk (8a)
k¼1
pffiffiffiffi
rk σri ðIi Þffk g λk
ck ¼ ¼ (8b)
σ ri σ ri
genvalue, respectively; rk σri means the response corre-
pffiffiffiffi
sponding to σ ri under the ESWLs (i.e., ffk g λk )
associated with {fk}; and ck is the kth linear combination or
weighting or contribution factor, actually signifying the
contribution of the ESWLs-ISR furnished by {fk} to the
total σ ri .
This proposition on the subtle use of POD modes as the
ESWLs has not only helped mirror the reduced-order
aptitude in mathematics, because a small section of
lower-order POD modes with larger eigenvalues have a
flair for generating high-precision ESWLs, WISRs and
wind-field reconstruction (Chen and Zhou, 2007), but has
also guided it in grasping how structures respond to spa-
tially varying wind loads (Chen and Zhou, 2007, Holmes,
1992), as the ESWLs only hinge on the aerodynamic
characteristics of approaching flows and buildings, getting
rid of structural behaviors andpsystems.
ffiffiffiffi Plus, if a p
linear
ffiffiffiffi
space is comprised of all gffk g λk , in which gffk g λk is
identified as the kth coordinate system, {PE,f} can be
thought of as an expansion in the space with ck being the kth
coordinate, equation (8a) and (8b) is equipped with a clear
mathematical and physical meaning.
For {PE,f}, though the above improved LRC method
advances the T-LRC method to a certain extent, it still
focuses on the background ESWLs, neglecting the resonant
ones and even their cross ones. But without a proper
consideration of the fluctuating ESWLs, the method will
find itself less employable in engineering structures be-
cause noticeable errors will arise (Ma et al., 2022).
10
Consequently, the methods relating to the background,
resonant, and even their cross WISRs, as well as the
corresponding ESWLs are indispensable.
For long-span bridges, the dynamic displacements
based on structural mode decomposition can be viewed as
the quasi-static responses under the spring resuming forces
composed of multiple-order structural mode inertial forces
(SMIFs). Thus, once the dynamic displacements are ob-
tainable, any arbitrary dynamic responses can be calculated
in the name of static analysis with the related structural
influence function (Chen and Kareem, 2001). The quasi-
static property can be grafted onto structural WISRs and
ESWLs, the WISRs under the spring resuming forces,
at this juncture, match the background displacements.
Therefore, the ESWLs for one interesting peak WISR could
be accessible by the T-LRC method, in which {PE,f} was
styled into the linear combination of a series of SMIFs
(Chen and Kareem, 2001):
X
K
PE, f ¼g fPe, k gWk (9a)
k¼1
fPe, k g ¼ ½M fφk gω2k σ qk (9b)
ó2rrk
Wk ¼ (9c)
σ r σ rk
where {Pe,k}=the kth SMIF originating from structural
mass matrix-[M], the kth structural mode-{φk}, the kth
circular frequency-ωk and the RMS value of kth modal
coordinate- σ qk ; σ r functions as the RMS value of the total
dynamic WISR time history r(t) against the concerned
WISR; σ rk contributes the RMS value of the component
rk(t) from the kth structural mode in r(t); σ 2rrk is the co-
variance between r(t) and rk(t); and Wk, the weighting/
combination/contribution factor of {Pe,k}, serves as the
correlation coefficient in physical meaning.
Assuming the dynamic WISR and its every component
are jointly the zero-mean Gaussian process, the ESWLs of
every structural mode will provide the corresponding most
probable peak load distributions (Chen and Kareem, 2001).
When multi-mode coupled responses and closely spaced
natural frequencies are required, the widely-known CQC
method in structural dynamics can be adopted to obtain the
fluctuating WISR (Chen and Kareem, 2001).
Above all, this method streamlines computation by
leaving out the above separations in the fluctuating WISR
and its corresponding ESWLs whose contributions are
considered in whole. Meanwhile, the most possible
probability level is imparted to the ESWLs. Likewise,
{PE,f} can be expanded in the linear space consisting of g
{Pe,k}, Wk is its kth coordinate on the coordinate system-g
{Pe,k}, which gives a better insight into the mathematical
and physical meanings. Moreover, this method breaks
Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)
through the hardships of modal response coupling and
correlation in multi-mode vibration to raise the accuracy.
It can be summarized here that the above improved LRC
methods indicate two significant basic avenues (the POD
and structural modes) flourishing to this day for proposing
the fluctuating ESWLs, and the POD modes give the en-
lightenment to the principal static wind loads (PSWLs)
modes mentioned later. Additionally, the two methods can
be practically used for all wind-sensitive structures, be-
cause the mathematical and mechanical equations have
nothing to do with structural types.
The methods associated with structural modes and the LRC
methods. There is a boom of the LRC method being used in
long-span roofs, in which the methods associated with
structural modes and the LRC methods prevail in the
ESWLs. This section is going to detail these methods ac-
cording to Three-Component Method and Two-Component
Method.
(1) The three-component methods
When considering the dynamic WISRs of fluctuating
wind loads for any structure, it is necessary to draw a line
between resonant and background components (Holmes,
2007), as the two varying components will bear individual
ESWLs. If a total WISR is divided into its mean, back-
ground and resonant components whose corresponding
ESWLs are calculated, and then the three ESWLs are
superposed linearly to form the total ESWLs, in which
every combination/weighting/contribution factor indicates
its ESWLs contribution proportion to the total ESWLs, this
is labeled as “Three-Component Method in ESWLs” (Sun
et al., 2015). In general, for a linear structure, because of the
linear superposition/decomposition principle in mathe-
matics, the mean ESWLs can be directly taken from the
mean wind loads. So, it is unnecessary to recalculate them
by the mean WISR, the fluctuating ESWLs are deemed to
be significant (Sun et al., 2015, Sun and Zhang, 2020). This
paper will mainly elaborate the fluctuating ESWLs in the
following.
Holmes (2002, 2007) and Chen et al. (2006) applied the
Three-Component-Method to compute the ESWLs of long-
span roofs based on a total maximum WISR of interest. In
this method, before structuring {PE,f}, the RMS values for
the background WISR and every resonant WISR are
amended via multiplying by their own peak factors, every
weighting factor for its ESWLs is the proportion of the
corresponding amended WISR in the total amended WISR,
with the total amended WISR evaluated by the frequently-
used square root of the sum of squares (SRSS) method in
structural dynamics (Holmes, 2002, 2007). For simplicity,
every peak factor for the resonant ESWLs could be an
Sun et al.
average for all structural modes, leading to {PE,f} (Holmes,
2002, 2007, Chen et al., 2006):
PE, f ¼ WB fPE, B g þ WR fPE, R g
gB σ r, B
WB ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðgB σ r, B Þ2 þ ðgR σ r, R Þ2
gR σ r, R
WR ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðgB σ r, B Þ2 þ ðgR σ r, R Þ2
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u N
uX  2
σ r, R ¼t σ r, Rj
j¼1
where {PE,B} and {PE,R} denote the background and
resonant ESWLs, respectively; WB and WR are their
weighting/combination/contribution factors when {PE,B}
and {PE,R} are combined; gB and gR signal the peak factors
for the background WISR-σ r,B and the resonant WISR-σ r,R
in the total fluctuating WISR-σ r, respectively; N is the
number of all required structural modes; and σ r,Rj is the
resonant WISR from jth structural mode.
In the specific calculation, {PE,B} is calculated by the
POD method like Holmes (1990, 1992) and Chen and Zhou
(2007), i.e., equation (8a) and (8b), implying the dedication
of all structural modes and having no relation with
structural dynamic characteristics. {PE,R} is acquired by
equation (9a)–(9c) (Chen et al., 2006) or Wk=1 in equation
(9c) (Holmes, 2002, 2007) from more than one dominant
structural mode.
Because pertaining to the fundamental characteristics
of wind loads (mean wind loads and the POD modes
of fluctuating wind loads) and the structural dynamic
characteristic (structural modes or Ritz vectors) (Chen
et al., 2006), the method is endowed with a clear physical
meaning. The articles of (Holmes, 2002, 2007, Chen
et al., 2006), however, took advantage of the SRSS
method for computing the fluctuating WISR with an
assumption of the uncoupled structural modes, and then
ignoring the modal coupling effect for the resonant
ESWLs. Unfortunately, such a hypothesis is not always
valid. The effect of multi-mode coupling should be
considered for some flexible structures with low damping
and dense modes and frequencies (Gu and Zhou, 2009,
Zhou and Gu, 2010).
Gu and Zhou (2009) and Zhou and Gu (2010), by fixing
some terms in the method of (Holmes, 2002, 2007, Chen
et al., 2006), crafted the improved Three-Component
Method to compute a peak WISR and its corresponding
ESWLs of long-span roof. In their method, the total res-
onant WISR coming from all the selected structural modes
is still obtained by the SRSS method, but the resonant
11
WISR of every structural mode of Holmes (2002, 2007)
consider the coupling effect exerted by the other structural
modes via a modal coupling factor in equation (11a) and
(10a) (11b), that is the so-called modified SRSS (MSRSS)
method:
(10b)
X
N
cj ¼ cj, k (11a)
k¼1
k ≠j
(10c)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
σ r, MRj ¼ 1 þ cj  σ r, Rj (11b)
where N= the number for the selected structural modes;
(10d) cj=the jth modal coupling factor allowing for N modal
coupling effects on the jth resonant WISR; cj,k =the modal
coupling factor considering the kth modal coupling effect
on the jth resonant WISR; σ r,MRj is viewed as the modified
resonant WISR of the jth mode and σ r,Rj the un-modified
resonant WISR of the jth mode in equation (10d).
When calculating the fluctuating ESWLs, the back-
ground ESWLs result from the T-LRC method, and the
resonant ESWLs of every structural mode are the ones of
(Holmes, 2002, 2007) multiplied by the corresponding
coupling modified factor, that is, σ qk in equation (9b) is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
replaced by 1 þ ck  σ qk . WB and WR are similarly
achieved by equation (10b)–(10c) after using the back-
ground WISR and σ r,MRj(j=1,2,/N).
Zhou and Gu (2010) went about an actual roof’s dis-
placements and ESWLs based on one specified displace-
ment, in which the MSRSS method outperforms the SRSS
method distinctly, the coupling validation is done by
comparing the errors between their WISRs and the WISRs
from the CQC method.
The long-span roofs with closely spaced natural fre-
quencies may undergo coupled motions when exposed to
spatiotemporally varying dynamic wind loads. In solving
their WISRs and ESWLs, the modal coupling effects may
include the ones between each background structural mode
and the ones between each resonant structural mode, as
well as the cross correlation between the background and
resonance, in which the covariance matrix of the total
dynamic displacements, according to the mode superpo-
sition method, is casted as (Luo et al., 2018):
Cyy ¼ Cyy B
þ Cyy R
þ 2 Cyy RB
(12)
¼ ½φ Cqq B½φ þ ½φ Cqq R½φT þ 2½φ Cqq
T
RB
½φT
where [Cyy]B, [Cyy]R and [Cyy]RB are the background,
resonant and cross displacement covariance matrices, re-
spectively; [φ] is the structural mode matrix in this paper;
[Cqq]B, [Cqq]R and [Cqq]RB are the background, resonant
and cross covariance matrices of the generalized dis-
placements, respectively.
12
As the background components can be calculated more
conveniently by the quasi-static analysis, equation (12) is
altered into (Luo et al., 2018):
½φ Cqq B½φT ¼ ½I Cpp B½IT
T T
Cyy ¼ ½I Cpp B½I þ ½φ Cqq R½φ þ 2½φ Cqq
where [I] is the known structural influence function matrix
in this paper; and [Cpp]B is the covariance matrix of external
wind loads.
Equation (13b) is the complete equation, in which [φ]
[Cqq]RB[φ]T is too small to be counted in many cases, this
will spawn the simple equation (Luo et al., 2018):
Cyy ¼ ½I Cpp B½IT þ ½φ Cqq R½φT
The modal coupling effects are implicitly encompassed
in these covariance matrices. Luo et al. (2018) make it clear
that the SRSS method underperforms in computing the
RMS displacements as against the complete and simplified
equations by reason of the errors.
Luo et al. (2018) launched into the fluctuating ESWLs for
an appointed WISR. In advance of computing the ESWLs,
the generalized resuming forces composed of fluctuating
wind loads and multiple-order SMIFs in quasi-static pattern
are defined, under which the so-called structural background
WISRs take on the mantle of the actual WISRs, creating a
sensible prerequisite to widen applying the T-LRC method.
Once [Cf] and ^ri, B in equation (7) are superseded by the
covariance matrix of the generalized resuming forces-[Cpp]
and the RMS WISR- σ ri , respectively, the ESWLs of ri
fPE, ri g are accomplished (Luo et al., 2018):
T the cross correlation between the background and reso-
g Cpp ðIi Þ
fPE, ri g ¼
σ ri
[Cpp] includes the complete form with the background,
resonance, and their cross components, as well as the
simplified form with the first two terms, so are the ESWLs
(Luo et al., 2018):
 T T
g ½K Cyy B½K þ ½K Cyy R½K

þ 2½K Cyy RB½KT ðIi ÞT
fPE, rig ¼ (16a)
σ ri
  T
g Cpp B þ Cpp R þ Cpp RB ðIi Þ
¼
σ ri
 
g Cpp þ Cpp
fPE, ri g ¼ B R
σ ri
Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)
where [Cpp]B, [Cpp]R and [Cpp]RB are the background,
resonance, and their cross components of the generalized
resuming forces, respectively. More specifically, [Cpp]B
comes from equation (13a) and (13b), and [Cpp]R is the
(13a) covariance matrix of the SMIFs.
T It can be learned from equation (16a) and (16b) that all the
RB
½φ three items could have been deduced from their respective
(13b) covariance matrixes of the general displacements, in which
the aforementioned modal coupling and cross correlation are
fused. But the background component, for convenience, is
substituted by [Cpp]B to show the real distributions of fluc-
tuating wind loads. The resonant component is the actual
distributions of multiple-order SMIFs. The cross component
is small enough to be overlooked compared to the resonant
one, because the long-span roofs, in many cases, own small
(14) damping and natural frequencies (there is no mention of the
cross ESWLs later in this paper.). The ESWLs, at this mo-
ment, are evolved into (Luo et al., 2018):
 T T
g Cpp þ ½Q0  Cqq R½Q0  ðIi Þ
fPE, ri g ≈ B
(17a)
σ ri
½Q0  ¼ ½M½φ½Λ (17b)
where [Λ] forms a diagonal matrix in reference to the
squares of the selected circular frequencies (or character-
istic values) in this paper.
By comparing one node’s peak displacements between
the CQC method and the proposed ESWLs under different
wind directions, Luo et al. (2018) confirm the robustness of
the proposed methods.
The framework of (Luo et al., 2018) can consider the
inter-modal coupling of modal response components and
(15) nance, bringing sufficient precision and efficiency under
the needed structural modes, by which the T-LRC method
is enriched.
These Three-Component-Methods in (Holmes, 2002,
2007, Chen et al., 2006, Gu and Zhou, 2009, Zhou and Gu,
2010, Luo et al., 2018) can remedy the main negativity in
the T-LRC method and the improved LRC method of
(Chen and Zhou, 2007, Holmes, 1992) for one thing, and
propose the differing ESWLs in response to wind load and
structure features for another. Nevertheless, they must split
a fluctuating WISR and its ESWLs into the background and
resonant components. No consensus has been reached with
respect to how to discriminate both accurately at present
yet, because the dynamic WISRs, in the strictest sense, are
inseparable. Furthermore, getting the WISR and its asso-
ðIi Þ
T
ciated fluctuating ESWLs separated appears to be needless
(16b) (Chen and Kareem, 2001, Fu et al., 2008).
Sun et al.
(2) The two-component methods
Expressing a total peak WISR as the linear combination
of its mean and dynamic fluctuating WISRs is possible, and
the corresponding ESWLs are thus obtained. The ESWLs
consisting of the mean and dynamic fluctuating compo-
nents are titled “Two-Component-Method” in this paper, in
which the latter amounts to the composite result of the
background and resonant ESWLs in the Three-Component-
Method (Sun et al., 2015).
As stated earlier, it is through structural modes that the
ESWLs can be constructed. In long-span roofs, a fluctu-
ating WISR and its ESWLs can also be completed just by
structural mode decomposition and the combination of
multiple-order SMIFs, respectively. Fu et al. (2008) also
enabled the ESWLs of a peak WISR to be figured by the
Two-Component Method, in which the fluctuating ESWLs
are designated as a linear combination of a series of the
SMIFs made up of each concerned structural mode, par-
alleling the method of (Chen and Kareem, 2001). The
effectiveness of this ESWL method is borne out by Fu et al.
(2008) on an actual roof, since the peak displacements by
the CQC method under different wind directions are in
excellent agreement with the corresponding peak ESWLs-
ISRs.
Whilst being viable at some level, the above Three- and
Two-Component-Methods rely on the dominant structural
modes which count for the WISR and its ESWLs for a
complex long-span roof, how to choose them precisely is
still either in debate or cumbersome. So, it may be a decent
move to compute the ESWLs by shunning structural
modes.
The methods independent of structural modes but based on
the LRC method. For long-span roofs, Zhou et al. (Zhou
et al. 2012, 2013) came up with a modified LRC method to
compute the entire structure’s ESWLs for a peak WISR by
Two-Component-Method:
n o n o
fPE, ^ri g ¼ PE þ PE, f ¼ PE þ diagðPEB, ^ri Þ  fkEB, ^ri g
(18)
where ^ri is the peak WISR determined in the same manner
as the T-LRC method; fPE g is the column vector of mean
wind loads in this paper; and the fluctuating ESWLs,
{PE,f}, emanate from the diagonal matrix of the back-
ground ESWLs in the T-LRC method- diagðPEB, ^ri Þ times a
modified coefficient column vector- fkEB, ^ri g .
fkEB, ^ri g is an unknown vector which is dispatched to
compensate the background ESWLs for the resonant ones,
its solution is the key to this method. Ideally, the following
equation holds (Zhou et al., 2012, 2013):
13
n o
ðIi ÞfPE, ^ri g ¼ ðIi Þ PE þ ðIi Þ  diagðPEB, ^ri Þ  fkEB, ^ri g ¼ ^ri
(19)
According to equation (19), fkEB, ^ri g can be evaluated as
(Zhou et al., 2012, 2013):
 n o
fkEB, ^ri g ¼ pinv½ðIi Þ  diagðPEB, ^ri Þ  ^ri  ðIi Þ  PE
(20)
where the operator pinv() is to obtain the Moore-Penrose
general inverse in this paper.
In equation (20), ðIi Þ  fPE g is the mean WISR in ^ri , so
^ri  ðIi Þ  fPE g can be regarded as the fluctuating WISR.
Every element in fkEB, ^ri g virtually enacts the adjustment
value for every corresponding background ESWL value in
diagðPEB, ^ri Þ.
This method of (Zhou et al., 2012, 2013) blazes a way
for the ESWLs independent of structural modes, easing
computation. The inverse-question thought underlies the
method, which cements the method’s mathematical and
physical meanings. More importantly, the fluctuating
WISR and its ESWLs contain the background and resonant
parts which are not artificially parted from each other, and
so is rewarded with less calculation expense, too.
The above methods endeavor to find some plausible
ESWLs, in fact, they tend to concentrate on a special but
elusive WISR. One long-span roof usually has multiple
WISRs, all the WISRs under the ESWLs of a special WISR
are very difficult to be consistent with the accurate WISRs,
which will impair their reasonability. In the meantime, an
inverse question can produce a wide range of solutions for
one initial condition. The ESWLs distributions resting on a
given WISR are not necessarily unique simply because
multiple ESWLs distributions can result in an identical
WISR (Chen and Zhou, 2007), which will increase the
complexity. Hence, there is a need to seek the ESWLs of
multiple target WISRs.
The multiple target equivalent methods
The multiple target equivalent methods try to find a whole
structure’s ESWLs by multiple preselected target WISRs.
In this subsection, there are: (1) The ESWLs independent
of structural modes but based on the LRC method; (2) The
ESWLs based on the POD modes of wind loads; (3) The
ESWLs of fluctuating wind loads depending only on
structural modes and frequencies; (4) The ESWLs based on
the POD modes of fluctuating wind loads and structural
modes/frequencies; and (5) The method resorting to the
RMS wind loads.
14 Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)

2 3
The methods independent of structural modes but based on ðI1 Þ
the LRC method. In the wake of the above-indicated 6 ðI2 Þ 7
modified LRC method in equation (18)–(20), the group- ½IM  ¼ 6
4 « 5
7 (22c)
ing response method was then suggested by Zhou et al. ðIN Þ
(Zhou et al. 2012, 2013) to erect the ESWLs for a subset of
WISRs (i.e., the grouped WISRs) in a set of pre-selected where kk2 denotes a vector’s Euclid norm; f^rM g is the
WISRs. column vector of the peak WISRs in the Mth group; and
This grouping response method commences with [IM] is the structural influence function matrix in con-
grouping the WISRs and ends up calculating the nection with f^rM g.
ESWLs. In accordance with the modified LRC method, Then the solution to {kE,M} is (Zhou et al., 2012, 2013):
the ESWLs of every peak WISR in the pre-selected
WISRs can be handily obtained, under which the fkE, M g ¼ pinvð½IM ½PE, M ^r Þf^rM g (23)
structural WISRs (the ESWLs-ISRs) corresponding to
the pre-selected WISRs are reproduced, if some of the The authors of (Zhou et al., 2012, 2013) exemplified the
ESWLs-ISRs get close to each other, their corre- grouping ESWL method on a space truss roof with node
sponding pre-selected WISRs are classified into a displacements and axial forces, in which the grouped
group, i.e., the grouped WISRs. The ESWLs of the WISRs agree well with their corresponding ESWLs-ISRs,
grouped WISRs are a linear combination of equation the un-grouped WISRs deviate from their corresponding
(18) for every peak WISR in this group (Zhou et al., ESWLs-ISRs significantly, however, showing that the
2012, 2013): method is partial toward the grouped WISRs.
While the grouped WISRs are appropriately chosen, the
range of the ESWLs magnitudes will be like that of natural
X
N
wind loads and so within reason. Instead, if the grouped
fPE,Mg ¼ kE,M i fPE,M ^ri g
i¼1
selection is improper, the ESWLs may be beset by some
8 9 erratic and irrational ESWLs with extremely large values. It
>
>
kE,M 1 >
>
h i>
<k >
= should be noted that when the grouped WISRs increases in
E,M 2 number, this individuality is more pronounced, which also
¼ fPE,M ^r1g fPE,M ^r2 g / fPE,M ^rNg
> >
> « >
>
: >
;
exists in (Katsumura et al., 1994, 2005a, 2005b, 2007,
kE,MN Tamura and Katsumura, 2012, Sun et al., 2015) inevitably.
¼ ½PE,M ^r fkE,M g To obtain the ESWLs with a reasonable value range, Zhou
et al. (2014) thought up the constrained least-square method to
(21) compute the ESWLs aiming at all peak WISRs in a certain
group of WISRs. In the method, the ESWLs are regarded as a
where {PE,M} is the total ESWLs for the Mth group with N linear combination of two kinds of pre-defined BWLDs, one
peak WISRs; fPE, M ^ri g is the ESWLs aiming at ^ri in the of which is still from ½PE, M ^r . For steering the ESWLs away
Mth group; and kE,M-i is the weighting/combination/con- from the above-mentioned abnormality, it is much-needed to
tribution factor indicating the contribution from fPE, M ^ri g restrain the value ranges of the ESWLs by controlling the
to {PE,M}. upper and lower bounds of {kE,M}. Then the solution for
If {P E,M} can be mathematically described as an {kE,M} is, in actuality, a constrained linear least-square
expansion in the linear space of the vectors in ½PE, M ^r , problem. The objective function in equation (22a) is com-
these linearly independent column vectors play the roles of bined with the constraint condition in equation (24) to search
bases (The bases are the basic wind load distributions for {kE,M} (Zhou et al., 2014):
(BWLDs)), which conduces to understanding the physical
kE, min ≤ kE, M i ≤ kE, max (24)
meaning. Through the linear least-square method without
any constraints, {kE,M} can be granted its optimal solution, where kE,min and kE,max are the upper and lower limits for
herein the objective function is (Zhou et al., 2012, 2013): any kE,M-i of {kE,M}, respectively, their optimal values can
be found by trial and error.
T ðfkE, M gÞ ¼ mink½IM ð½PE, M ^r fkE, M gÞ  f^rM gk2 (22a) Meanwhile, a few typical WISRs rather than all WISRs in
8 9 the certain group can be given more significance, their pre-
>
> ^r1 > established weighting factors are imported together with the
< > =
^r2 constraint to lift the accuracy of these typical WISRs signally.
f^rM g ¼ (22b)
>
> « > The solution to {kE,M} is turned into a weighted and con-
: > ;
^rN strained linear least-square problem, the objective function in
Sun et al.
equation (25) and the constraint condition in equation (24) are
empowered to find the solution to {kE,M} (Zhou et al., 2014):
T ðfkE, M gÞ ¼ minkfW g*f½IM ð½PE, M ^r fkE, M gÞ  f^rM ggk2
(25)
where {W} works as the weighting factor column vector;
and the notation * in this paper is just a multiplication in
form, meaning that the elements at the same position of two
same-sized vectors are multiplied.
Zhou et al. (2014) still took the structure in Zhou et al.
(2012) as an instance to uphold their ESWLs. In search of
the credible ESWLs which bear the obvious similarity to
the natural wind pressure in range, kE,min=-2 and kE,max=2,
the weighting factors for the typical WISRs are set as
10 and those for the non-typical WISRs as one to ame-
liorate the accuracy of the typical WISRs.
These methods of Zhou et al. (Zhou et al. 2012, 2014)
eliminate the dependence on structural modes and fre-
quencies, thus giving some relief from computing the
WISRs and the ESWLs. Meanwhile, they can accommo-
date multiple WISRs simultaneously rather than one
WISR. Furthermore, the authors spearhead the way to find
a balance between accuracy and reasonability via these
constraints. Finally, because of inheriting the T-LRC
method, the ESWLs are analogous to the ones with the
characteristics of the T-LRC method and demonstrate
certain physical meanings (Zhou et al., 2012, 2014).
The following downsides to these methods, however,
still exist: (1) These methods trade the errors for the rea-
sonability, even if the accuracies can be better ensured in
the ESWLs of the selected WISR group, they are unsat-
isfactory for the other WISRs. (2) The ESWLs connect
themselves to the grouped patterns which can be seen as the
initial conditions in the inverse question, so they will vary
with the grouped WISRs, seeming illogical. (3) The se-
lected WISRs are all peak values. But different WISRs can
rarely peak at the same time, and their correlations should
be considered, or the ESWLs of numerous WISRs will
potentially be too large to be used, although the above
constraints can cushion the problem at the sacrifice of
accuracy. (4) When more WISRs require the above con-
straints, or the constraints become more rigorous, such a
way of proceeding is no longer applicable by virtue of the
greater errors as compared to the results without the
constraints.
The methods based on the POD modes of wind loads. In
mathematics, based on the variable separation method,
POD method is credited with analyzing a complex random
field which can be expanded into the linear combination of
a series of orthogonal basis functions (i.e., POD modes),
where the combination factors are their principal coordi-
nates (Solari and Carassale, 2000). This method also gains
15
favor with spatiotemporally changing wind fields, some
significant physical distributions, such as the POD modes
of wind fields, may express ESWLs availably (Katsumura
et al., 2007).
The method based on the POD modes of total wind
loads. Davenport and Surry (1984) also made use of Two-
Component-Method to calculate the maximum and mini-
mum ESWLs of a saddle-shaped hyperbolic paraboloid
roof with a nearly circular plan form, herein the linear
combination of the multiple POD modes of total (mean and
fluctuating) wind loads are passing for the mean and
fluctuating ESWLs. The maximum and minimum ESWLs
at the polar coordinates-(r,θ) are expressed as (Davenport
and Surry, 1984):
( )
Xh i
PD ðr, θÞ ¼ q ~ Fi  ðRMFÞ
C Fi ± g i  C fi ðr, θÞ
i
i
(26)
in which, q is the mean reference velocity pressure at the
saddle roof height; fi(r,θ) is the ith POD mode defining the
ith shape of the structural wind loads at the position (r,θ); gi
is the statistical peak factor for the ith mode who is related
to the number of POD modes contributing to a critical
loading case. When more than one POD mode act, gi will
be systematically reduced by an empirical load combina-
~ F are the mean and RMS values of the
tion factor; C Fi and C i
ith modal force coefficient time history- CFi ðtÞ ; (RMF)i is
the resonant magnification factor of CFi ðtÞ which can be
given by an established random noise theory.
In equation (26), the force coefficients stipulating the
amplitudes of these orthogonal loading patterns are each
summarized by C Fi, C ~ F and (RMF)i (Davenport and Surry,
i
1984). CFi ðtÞ assumes the role of the POD principal co-
ordinate in the POD decomposition.
In practical computation, the POD modes are set as
some simple mathematical shape functions (harmonic
Fourier functions) coinciding with the structural modes of a
circular membrane and drawing close to the ones of the
hyperbolic paraboloid surface. Meanwhile, the shape
functions relate intimately to the characteristics of the
structural WISRs.
Unlike most methods, Davenport and Surry (1984) did
not settle the WISRs-based ESWLs, but first obtained the
ESWLs, following any one peak WISR for design- ^rD as
long as the influence function for the WISR took the place
of the corresponding POD mode:
( )
Xh i
^rD ¼ q ~ Fi  ðRMFÞ
C F i ± gi  C Ii ðrÞ (27)
i
i
16
where Ii(r) is the influence function for the WISR-ri due to
the unit action of fi(r,θ).
In addition to avoiding involving the influence function
directly in the load description, the method directly makes
for the representatives of highly complicated load patterns
(Davenport and Surry, 1984). The ESWLs also start di-
verging from structural modes and verge on the POD
modes of wind loads, which cut back the computation.
However, the above-mentioned WISRs for design stem
from the ESWLs, so they may be in disaccord with the
actual WISRs. What is more, the mean wind loads are
embraced in the total wind loads to pass off as the POD
computation, they ought to be excluded from the POD
analysis, and their contribution is processed separately
(Tamura et al., 1999).
The methods based on the POD modes of fluctuating wind
loads. Most of the preceding methods tie the ESWLs of an
overall structure to one WISR or some suitable WISRs.
This only accounts for a small proportion in all WISRs,
thus mistakenly using one part to represent the whole. The
selected WISR or WISRs can be said to be subjective and
even inappropriate, and the resultant pattern tailored to the
different WISR or WISRs, as mentioned earlier, will beget
inconsistent ESWLs for the same structure, which does not
seem to make sense. Besides, it is often tough to pinpoint
the WISR or WISRs in advance, especially for a complex
structure with a shower of WISRs, since the WISR or
WISRs may not stand out from the others (Li and Tamura,
2005). Such being the case, it may be expedient to select the
entirety in one kind or different sorts of WISRs as much as
possible.
As WISRs vary spatiotemporally, their largest values for
all structural members do not occur simultaneously. The
universal ESWLs (UESWLs), which can synchronously
reproduce these WISRs in theory by using an inverse-
analysis technique and be seen as a linear combination of
several known arbitrary BWLDs, will be practical espe-
cially in the early design stage. This holds true even though
they may have small changes in structural design
(Katsumura et al., 1994, 2005a, 2005b, 2007, Tamura and
Katsumura, 2012).
For the fluctuating UESWLs on long-span roofs, scilicet
the uncompensated ESWLs {PE,f-u} called by Sun et al.
(2015), the articles of (Katsumura et al., 1994, 2005a,
2005b, 2007, Tamura and Katsumura, 2012) advocated the
known intrinsic POD modes of fluctuating wind loads as
the BWLDs:
PE, f u ¼ ½ffCg (28)
where [f] is the selective POD mode matrix of fluctuating
wind loads; and {C} is the undetermined column vector of
weighting/combination/contribution factors.
Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)
Here, {PE,f-u} can be perceived as one expansion in the
linear place of [f] with {C} being its coordinates in the
coordinate system.
In preparation for obtaining {C}, the known WISRs-
{re} can be formulated as (Katsumura et al., 1994, 2005a,
2005b, 2007, Tamura and Katsumura, 2012):
fre g ¼ ½I PE, f u ¼ ½I½ffCg (29)
Equation (29) forms a homogeneous linear equation set,
whereupon {C} can be solved by the least-square method
(Katsumura et al., 1994, 2005a, 2005b, 2007, Tamura and
Katsumura, 2012):
fCg ¼ pinvð½I½fÞfre g (30)
This method gains the uncompensated ESWLs
straightforward by the POD modes, simplifying the
computation on account of ending the relationship with
structural modes and frequencies. Indeed, not only can it
take care of the ESWLs for one category of WISRs such as
the ESWLs of displacement or axial force, but it also
provides the ESWLs for different sorts of WISRs like the
ESWLs of displacement and axial force, making a welcome
contribution to broaden its application scope. Moreover, it
can think of the target WISRs for multiple and even all
wind directions, which also opens a new window into its
broader application field (Ma et al., 2022). Finally, it is
invested with a widespread applicability holding for all
linear engineering structures, because the computational
processes do not lean on structural styles at all.
If the wind loads on structures must be obtained ex-
perimentally, the total number of the POD modes of
fluctuating wind loads will be equal to that of the inde-
pendent measuring points (Sun et al., 2015). Owing to the
limitations of test equipment and wind tunnel model, it
usually happens that the number of independent measuring
points is far fewer than the nodal number of structural
finite-element model (Sun et al., 2015). The method turns
out to be more mathematical in nature and is a better fit for
the simple structures with fewer WISRs in the case of fewer
POD modes. However, it may nullify itself if all the POD
modes are greatly outnumbered by a wealth of WISRs in
the complex linear structures for the greater errors between
the accurate {re} and the approximate WISRs subjected to
{PE,f-u} (Sun et al., 2015), that is, the POD reduced-order
talent will be even more eclipsed here. Another problem
with the method is that only the background ESWLs can be
computed in the articles of (Holmes, 1992, 2002, Ginger
et al., 2000, Chen et al., 2006, 2012, 2014, Yang et al.,
2013, Blaise and Denoel, 2013), and it doesn’t consider
structural mechanical behavior and a possible resonant
contribution in WISRs (Blaise and Denoel, 2013).
As to these defects, Sun et al. (2015) theorized a
modified UESWL method of the fluctuating wind loads on
Sun et al.
the complex linear long-span roofs by incorporating the
above UESWL method with the POD compensation
strategy. In this strategy, based on the response differences
(the compensated objective) between {re} and the ap-
proximate ESWLs-ISRs in the UESWL method, the
compensated POD mode and factor are inversely coined
through the least-square method. Then their product is the
compensated ESWLs, and is merged with {PE,f-u} to form
the total ESWLs.
Based on equation (30), the compensated objective is
(Sun et al., 2015):
fre, c g ¼ fre g  ½I½fðpinvð½I½fÞfre gÞ (31)
The unit compensated POD mode {fc} and corre-
sponding compensated contribution factor Cc are con-
structed (Sun et al., 2015):
pinvð½IÞ  fre, c g
ffc g ¼ (32a)
Cc
Cc ¼ normðpinvð½IÞ  fre, c gÞ (32b)
The total fluctuating ESWLs are (Sun et al., 2015):
PE, f ¼ ½f  pinvð½I½fÞfre g þ ffc g  Cc (33)
The authors of (Sun et al., 2015) compared the relevant
responses, and computed the errors between the accurate
WISRs {re} and the ESWLs-ISRs under {PE,f-u} or {PE,f},
demonstrating the need for compensation.
More important than just helping with the previous
assets, the modified method can exterminate the errors that
grow out of all modes or a portion of lower-order modes
considered in the UESWL method itself, and only leaves
the innate errors caused by the Moore-Penrose generalized
inverse of the non-square [I], so it can obtain the accurate
displacement-based ESWLs, as well as the highest-fidelity
ESWLs based on internal force and internal force/
displacement (The precise ESWLs based on internal
force, as Wu (2007) has claimed, do not usually exist.),
revealing its clear physical meaning and high accuracy
(Sun et al., 2015). Whereas it should be spelled out that all
WISRs are also hypothesized to reach their maxima si-
multaneously in the two UESWL methods (this point is
expressly termed the common issue in the UESWLs in this
paper), which may raise some erratic and irrational ESWLs
with huge absolute values to erode their wide availability
indisputably (Sun et al., 2015). In practice, the possibility
for all WISRs to arrive at their maxima concurrently is slim
(Katsumura et al., 1994, 2005a, 2005b, 2007, Tamura and
Katsumura, 2012). It is a must to consider their correlation,
little headway with this consideration has been made
currently, however (Sun et al., 2015).
17
The method of fluctuating wind loads depending only on
structural modes and frequencies. In the Two-Component-
Method, it is fruitful to compute the fluctuating UESWLs
only through structural modes and frequencies.
The method based on multiple-order SMIFs. The only
distinction between the method based on the multiple-order
SMIFs and the methods based on the POD modes of
fluctuating wind loads is that the multiple-order SMIFs can
be appropriated in place of the POD modes.
For a linear complex long-span roof with quite a few
degrees of freedom (DOFs), a joint consideration for the
frequency characteristics of structures and wind loads is
often encouraged to compute structural WISRs based on
dynamics of structures (Sun and Zhang, 2020). It is quite
possible that most of the structural intermediate and higher-
order frequencies exceed far beyond the frequency scope of
frequently encountered wind loads, and that very few of
them and their associated structural modes can be excited
by wind loads (Holmes, 2007; Macdonald, 1975). A mi-
nority of low-order frequencies and modes, correspond-
ingly, most often predominate over the WISRs. Based on
the linear combination of their multiple-order SMIFs, the
corresponding UESWLs of fluctuating wind loads for these
low-order frequencies and modes, the uncompensated
ESWLs, were built by (Sun and Zhang, 2020):
PE, f u ¼ ½M ½φ½ΛfCg (34)
where [M], [φ], [Λ] and {C} hold the same meanings as
before; {PE,f-u}can also be seen as a vector to be unfolded
in the linear space of [M][φ][Λ]; and {C} is still envisioned
as the coordinates whose solution is (Sun and Zhang,
2020):
fCg ¼ pinvð½I½M ½φ½ΛÞfre g (35)
It’s not hard to know from mathematics that equation
(34) will incur considerable errors in the uncompensated
ESWLs, despite the usage of the least-square method. Sun
and Zhang (2020) invented another compensated tactic to
surmount the negative consequence in the absence of the
medium and higher modes and frequencies for the ESWLs.
In this method, considering the response differences be-
tween {re} and the uncompensated ESWLs-ISRs, the
authors turn to the least-square method for inversely setting
up one compensated characteristic value, mode and con-
tribution factor whose product constitutes the compensated
ESWLs. The method ends with the compensated ESWLs
being superimposed into the uncompensated ones to forge
the total ESWLs.
The compensated objective becomes (Sun and Zhang,
2020):
18
fre, c g ¼ fre g  ð½I½M ½φ½ΛÞ  ðpinvð½I½M ½φ½ΛÞ  fre gÞ
¼ ½I½M fφc gΛc Cc
(36)
where {φc}, Λc and Cc are the compensated mode, char-
acteristic value and contribution factor, respectively, which
can be coined (Sun and Zhang, 2020):
fΦg fΦg
fφc g ¼ ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Λc Cc
fΦgT ½M fΦg
fφc gT ½Kfφc g
Λc ¼
fφc gT ½M fφc g
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
fΦg ½M fΦg
T
Cc ¼
Λc
fΦg ¼ pinvð½I½MÞ  fre, c g
where [K] is the structural matrix; and {V} is looked on as
the compensated vector.
The total fluctuating ESWLs are (Sun and Zhang, 2020):
PE,f ¼ ð½M ½φ½ΛÞðpinvð½I½M ½φ½ΛÞfre gÞ
þ½M fφc gΛc Cc
Sun and Zhang (2020) compared the relevant responses
and calculated their errors, which substantiate the necessity
for this compensation.
In this method, the errors born out of {PE,f-u} themselves
are eradicated, and the unavoidable ones triggered by the
Moore-Penrose generalized inverse of [I][M] are only
preserved, which refine the accuracy and exhibit clear
mathematical and physical meanings.
The parametric analysis methods. Most of the current
UESWLs methods are derived from pure numerical algo-
rithms, and there are no general practical parametrical ex-
pressions for the engineering applications, bringing the
inconveniency to the designers (Chen et al., 2018, Wang
et al., 2023). The parametric analysis methods provide an
alternative approach.
Single-layer cylindrical shells, plate-like flat roofs and
railway station canopies are also in the spotlight. In most
cases, sufficient structural modes are recruited to calculate
their WISRs, but if the wind and structural parameters of
these structures can cover the common engineering ap-
plication ranges of practical interest, few dominant
structural modes with the maximum strain energy will be
prioritized to calculate their dynamic WISRs and
UESWLs in the parametric study (Chen et al., 2018, Wang
et al., 2020, 2023).
Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)
For the single-layer cylindrical steel shells located in open
terrains and supported by hinged constraints along four edges
(Chen et al., 2018): (1) Their structural members along the
arch direction are the primary load-resistant members, with
the response peculiarity similar to those of the plane archs; (2)
Their bending stress and and vertical displacement are the
unfavorable responses, in which the background WISRs far
outweigh the resonant ones; and (3) The two unfavorable
wind directions for the WISRs and the UESWLs are 0o and
(37a) 45o. Chen et al. (2018) found two most dominant structural
modes in the shells, and gave the UESWLs for all nodal
displacements under the parametric analysis in a manner that
balances precision and convenience:
(37b)
n o 1  2 n o
fPE, t g ¼ PE þ PE, f ¼ ρ V 0 C p ðx, yÞ
2 
± C1, f fφ1 ðx, yÞg þ C2, f fφ2 ðx, yÞg (39)
(37c)
where (x,y) sets one coordinate on the surface of the shells;
(37d) {PE,t}, fPE g and {PE,f} mean the total, mean and fluctu-
ating UESWLs, respectively; fC p ðx, yÞg is on behalf of the
known mean wind pressure coefficients; ρ and V 0 are air
density and the mean reference wind velocity in this paper,
respectively; and {φk(x,y)}(k=1,2) and Ck,f(k=1,2) are the
dominant structural modes and their corresponding com-
bination factors in this paper, respectively.
(38) Many structural modes are necessary to compute the
dynamic WISRs, it is difficult to obtain the UESWLs for
both all nodal displacements and all member stress with
{φk(x,y)}(k=1,2). Therefore, equation (39) is multiplied by
an adjustment factor β to express the total UESWLs for all
member stress (Chen et al., 2018):
1  2 n o
fPE, t g ¼ β ρ V 0 C p ðx, yÞ ± C1, f fφ1 ðx, yÞg
2 
þ C2, f fφ2 ðx, yÞg
(40)
In equations (39) and (40), the approximate and simple
expressions of {φk(x,y)}can be found in Chen et al. (2018).
Ck,f can be obtained like Chen et al. (Chen et al. 2012,
2014) and Yang et al. (2013) in principle. However, to
facilitate engineering application, the parametric results of
the UESWLs can be simply expressed. After investigating
the dependence of Ck,f and β on the wind and structural
parameters (the unfavorable wind direction θ, the structural
span S, the rise-span ratio f/S, the length-span ratio L/S, the
roof distributed mass, and the reduced frequency f*=f1S/V0
being f1 the basic frequency in this paper and V0 the mean
wind velocity at 10 m height.), a serious of conservative
empirical equations and values for both are fitted. The
actual distributions of fC p ðx, yÞg obtained from the wind
tunnel tests are rather complex, to make their simplified
forms into full use in engineering, the roofs are separated
Sun et al.
into several rectangular zones, wherein their portioned
values with reference to L/S, f/S and θ are experimentally
provided in Chen et al. (2018).
For the plate-like flat roofs supported on four sides
(Wang et al., 2020): (1) The bending stress and and
vertical displacement are the unfavorable responses; (2)
In view of the structural WISRs and UESWLs, the two
unfavorable wind directions are the wind directions
along the short (0o) and long (90o) building sides; and (3)
The first structural mode, a double sinusoidal surface, is
the most dominant mode. Wang et al. (2020), in com-
bination with parametric analysis, studied the structural
UESWLs for all nodal displacements and member stress:
n o 1  2 n o slope); {φk(x)}(k=1,2) are the beam components in the
fPE, t g ¼ PE þ PE, f ¼ ρ V0 C p ðx, yÞ
2 
± C1, f fφ1 ðx, yÞg
(41)
where (x,y) prescribes one coordinate on the roofs;
{φ1(x,y)} is recorded in Wang et al. (2020). If the structural
mass is evenly distributed, C1,f can be simplified as (Wang
et al., 2020):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
π Aðf1 H=V Þ
C1, f ¼ 4gσ 1 þ
4ζ 1 1 þ Bðf1 H=V Þ2 1:2
where σ =the RMS of the first modal generalized wind
force coefficient; ζ 1 =the damping ratio; and f1H/V=the
reduced frequency corresponding to the mean wind ve-
locity V at the roof eave height H.
Using the test pressures, the generalized force spectrum
Aðf1 H=V Þ
curve ½1þBðf H=V Þ2 1:2
and σ in equation (42) can be fitted by
1
the least-squares method for engineering convenience. The
fitted values of A, B and σ for different terrain types, length-
width ratios and unfavorable wind directions are well
documented in Wang et al. (2020).
The roofs are also parceled out into several rectangular
domains, whose simple expressions of fC p ðx, yÞg depending
on length, width, terrain types, length-width ratios and un-
favorable wind directions are offered in Wang et al. (2020).
For the regular canopies with single- or three-span frames
in the small or medium-sized railway stations (Wang et al.,
2023): (1) The structural systems can be roughly modeled as
plane frames, and the wind loads on the frame columns are
too small to be ignored, therefore the UESWLs on the frame
beams represent the UESWLs of the canopies; (2) In the
plane frames, the first structural mode rules over the hori-
zontal displacements and the frame column stresses, and the
second structural mode dominates the vertical displacements
and the frame beam stresses of the canopy frames; (3) The
unfavorable wind directions are determined for the center,
near-center and end frames; (4) The canopies of railway
19
stations are fully open without walls or other obstacles
between the columns; and (5) The interference caused by
other buildings on the railway stations are omitted. Wang
et al. (2023) devised the total UESWLs of the frame beam
for all nodal displacements and member stress in the frame:
1  2 n o
fPE, t g ¼ ρ V 0 C p ðxÞ n ± C1, f ðxÞ *fφ1 ðxÞg
2 
þ C2, f ðxÞ *fφ2 ðxÞg
(43)
where x is the coordinate on the beam; n is the normal
vector projecting the vertical fC p ðxÞg onto the roof’s
normal direction thanks to the beam slope (i.e., the roof
frame’s dominant structural modes, which can be ob-
tained from either the classical finite element analyses or
the simplified functions parametrically defined in Wang
et al. (2023); The practical fC p ðxÞg in engineering de-
mand are experimentally gained, whose simplified
parametrical expressions and distributions relying on the
structural and wind parameters can be discovered in
Wang et al. (2023); and {Ck,f(x)}(k=1,2) are the com-
bination factor vectors (or the vectors containing the
equivalent fluctuating wind pressure coefficient Ck,f(x))
(42)
on the frame beam, in which the element Ck,f(x) reads
(Wang et al., 2023):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2
mðxÞ 1  2 πfk
Ck,f ðxÞ ¼  2 g ρ V0 σ k As þ SFFk ðfk Þ
* 2 4ξ
1
2
ρ V 0 WM k
(44)
where m(x)=the distributed mass per unit length of the
frame beam; As=LW with L=the distance between the frame
columns and W=the longitudinal spacing of the frames;
M * =the kth structural mode’s generalized mass; f =the kth
k k
structural Hz frequency; σ k=the RMS of the kth structural
mode generalized force coefficient; and SFFk( fk)=the kth
structural mode generalized force spectrum. After the least-
square fitting, the intuitive parametrical expressions of
SFFk(fk) and σ k banking on the wind and structural pa-
rameters are given in Wang et al. (2023), which are con-
ducive to the structure design.
The overall good match between the ESWLs-ISRs and
the target WISRs and the deviation from the traditional
GRF method both reveal the adequacy of these methods of
(Chen et al., 2018, Wang et al., 2020, 2023).
Most of the UESWL methods will summon numerous
BWLDs for complicated structures, and fit single case
analysis due to their incompetence in expressing the results
of a certain kind of long-span roofs, all of which can be
overcome by (Chen et al., 2018, Wang et al., 2020, 2023),
20
however. These methods individuate the UESWLs as the
parametric expressions, pursuing a novel, simple, high-
precision and usable route for a serious of roofs via a small
amount of structural modes and the characteristics of the
WISRs. Nevertheless, these methods are enslaved to the
assumption that there is a simple linear relation between
the UESWLs of all node displacements and those of all
element stress, which is not always the case in fact for many
long-span roofs. Furthermore, if the UESWLs need more
structural modes definitely, the effectiveness of these
methods demands further investigation.
The methods of combining multiple-order SMIFs and single
value decomposition. The methods of combining multiple-
order SMIFs and single value decomposition (SVD) are
also stated as PSWLs in the papers of (Blaise et al., 2012,
Blaise and Denoel, 2013; Frontini et al., 2022). SVD is a
high-powered technique solving the sets of matrix-form
equations classically, and is adoptable for the complicated
conditions in which some classical methods such as LU
decompositions and Gaussian elimination feel incompetent
to provide satisfactory results, or even in the other cases
where the number of unknowns is more or less than that of
the equations, it can assist in identifying the number of
modes in each frequency response band of the corre-
sponding transfer function in a stable way (Biglieri et al.,
1989). One of the main benefits of SVD is its capability of
separating and distinguishing the different modes produced
in a single transfer function that corresponds to each mode
without residual effects (Rizzo et al., 2023).
Blaise et al. (2012) and Blaise and Denoel (2013) were
still keen on Two-Component-Method. In their method, a
ESWLs matrix, ½PE, f , is first computed for each fluctu-
LRC
ating buffeting WISR of interest using equation (9a)–(9c)
(Blaise et al., 2012, Blaise and Denoel, 2013):
h i
LRC
PE, f ¼ ½ PE, f , 1 PE, f , 2 / PE, f , M 
where {PE,f,i}(i=1,2,/,M) extracts the ESWLs for ith
fluctuating WISR of interest.
Then equation (45) is factorized by SVD as (Blaise
et al., 2012, Blaise and Denoel, 2013):
h i h i Carlo optimization used in Blaise and Denoel (2013), the
LRC
PE, f ¼ PE,
PSWL
f ½Σ V T
where ½PE, PSWL
f  ¼ fPE, f , 1 g fPE, f , 2 g / fPE, f , N g
PSWL PSWL PSWL
is the square matrix of PSWLs, in which the orthogonal
vector fPE, f , i g (or the load modes) are called PSWLs; [Σ]
PSWL
collects, along its main diagonal, the singular values
(i.e., the principal coordinates) ordered by descending
magnitude; and [VT] contains the combination coefficients
to rebuild ½PE, f  from the linear combination of ½PE, f ,
LRC PSWL
weighed by the singular values.
Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)
Inspired by common POD applications, only the first few
load modes determined by the corresponding dominant
principal coordinates may be kept for representing ½PE, f 
LRC
sufficiently accurately (Blaise et al., 2012, Blaise and
Denoel, 2013). A first main advantage is that the selec-
tion is straightforward since they are ranked by decreasing
importance. Moreover, each load mode (principal load) is no
longer associated with a specific WISR, but rather aims at a
global reconstruction of the set of ESWLs and, as a corollary,
of the envelope of WISRs (Blaise and Denoel, 2013).
The way to define PSWLs suggests that linear combi-
nations may be considered, any combination of the PSWLs
can produce the new fluctuating UESWLs-{PE,f} of long-
span roofs and the corresponding ESWLs-ISRs- fre,ISRs f g
(Blaise et al., 2012, Blaise and Denoel, 2013):
h i
PE, f ¼ PE, PSWL
f fCg (47a)
n o
re,ISRs
f ¼ ½I PE, f (47b)
where {C} is an undetermined vector of arbitrary com-
bination coefficients. The only limitation on solving {C} is
f g (the reconstructed envelope) is enforced to
that fre,ISRs
never overestimate its corresponding target envelopes
(i.e., the fluctuating target WISRs), and that fre,ISRs f g is
constrained to lie inside the target envelopes and to be at
least in a point tangent to its boundary ½PE, f  (Blaise and
PSWL
Denoel, 2013, Frontini et al., 2022). Consequently, in the
multi-dimensional space related to the envelopes, fre,ISRs f g is
a parametric representation of the subspace spanned by the
principal static wind loads collected in ½PE, f  (Blaise and
PSWL
Denoel, 2013).
The method allows appreciating the gain of a desired
reconstructed envelope accuracy by combining a finite
number of fPE, f , i g, fully reflecting the reduced-order
PSWL
(45) capacity. The SVD operation puts a new slant on con-
structing the BWLDs in the UESWLs. The method’s main
advantage is that the principal bases used to define ½PE, f 
PSWL
are optimal to solve envelope reconstruction problem
(Frontini et al., 2022). Regrettably, this method doesn’t
point out evaluating {C} clearly. Even through a Monte
(46) high computation costs are unavoidable for general
structures, especially for the complex cases for which just
a few fPE, f , i g might be unable to accurately reproduce
PSWL
the envelopes. Moreover, the error limit is relatively loose
because fre,ISRs f g is confined a wide band.
Following this PSWLs thread, Frontini et al. (2022)
pushed forward with the method. Thanks to the non-
Gaussian distribution of WISRs, each peak WISR
(namely the target envelop) can be derived from the Gumbel
method (Frontini et al., 2022). For nodal displacements,
Sun et al.
when the kth WISR peaks, the corresponding total (mean
plus fluctuating) ESWLs are (Frontini et al., 2022):
n o n o n o
fPE, t, k g ¼ ½K db ¼ ½K½φ qbq ¼ ½M ½φ½Λ qbq
dk k k
where fdb g and fqbq g are the column vectors of the
dk k
displacements and the modal coordinates in which the kth
values reach their peak WISRs.
The global matrix containing all {PE,t,k}(k=1,2,/,M) is
(Frontini et al., 2022):
½PE, t  ¼ ½ fPE, t, 1 g fPE, t, 2 g / fPE, t, M g 
Following Blaise et al. (2012) and Blaise and Denoel
(2013), a SVD of [PE,t] is performed to obtain the load
mode fPE, PSWL
g , whose PSWLs matrix is
h t, i i
½PE,
t  ¼ fPE, t, 1 g fPE, t, 2 g / fPE, t, N g
PSWL PSWL PSWL PSWL
. The
total UESWLs-{PE,t} and the corresponding ESWLs-ISRs-
t g are (Frontini et al., 2022):
fre,ISRs
h i
fPE, t g ¼ PE,
PSWL
t fCg
n o h i
re,ISRs
t ¼ ð½I½φÞ  pinvð½M ½φ½ΛÞ  P PSWL
E, t fCg (50b)
Under selecting a small percentage of fPE, t, i g to build
PSWL
{PE,t} for a sizeable number of WISRs, and then reproduce
t g, an optimization procedure must be used to find
fre,ISRs
{C}, with fre,ISRs
t g matching the target envelops approxi-
mately. To this end, the method in Blaise et al. (2012) and
Blaise and Denoel (2013) can be ameliorated introducing a
tolerance band in the reconstruction of the target envelopes
and a genetic algorithm optimization for the optimal
combination of fPE, t, i g .
PSWL
A comparison with the simple target ESWLs method
has shown the method’s optimality.
First, the approach is based on both relaxing the
constraint requirement enforced on the reconstructed
envelope in Blaise et al. (2012) and Blaise and Denoel
(2013) and defining a global optimization parameter
used for automated optimization algorithms (Frontini
et al., 2022). Instead of a perfect match between the
target and reconstructed envelopes, an approximated
envelope provides a reasonably accurate reconstruction
after the balance of precision and simplicity, in which a
bounded overcoming of the target envelopes should be
allowed for: this approach therefore implies an over-
estimation of the acting forces in designing the struc-
tural components (Frontini et al., 2022). Second, the
method can consider a large amount of structural pa-
rameters, removing the need to torturously identify
critical structural elements in the verification of the
21
structure, and consequently the designer’s subjectivity
(Frontini et al., 2022).
The methods of (Blaise et al., 2012, Blaise and Denoel,
2013, Frontini et al., 2022) recast the UESWLs into a
combination of some lower-order new BWLDs. However,
(48) they are mathematical by essence, because of the looser
error, the ESWLs-ISRs may have serious deviation from
their original equivalent targets seriously, misleading
designers.
It should be accented here that these advocated methods
of fluctuating wind loads depending only on structural
modes and frequencies still shrivel for tackling the com-
(49) mon issue in the UESWLs.
The methods based on the POD modes of fluctuating wind loads
and structural modes/frequencies. {PE,f-u} in equation (28) is
justified in coping with the background ESWLs only, it’s
well worth developing the other alternatives to consider the
impact of the resonant ESWLs directly or indirectly except
for the compensated channel proposed by Sun et al. (2015).
In the methods based on the POD modes of wind loads and
the methods of fluctuating wind loads depending only on
(50a) structural modes and frequencies, the BWLDs are reliant
on either POD modes or multiple-order SMIFs, the union
of both into one may be problem-solving for the resonant
ESWLs.
Enlightened by Katsumura et al. (1994, 2005a, 2005b,
2007), Tamura and Katsumura (2012) and Chen and Yang
(2019), Chen et al. (Chen et al. 2012, 2014) and Yang et al.
(2013) also ran the UESWLs on long-span roofs via the
Two-Component-Method, in which the fluctuating
ESWLs-{PE,f} is a linear combination of some dominant
POD modes and [M][φ][Λ] from the prominent structural
modes/frequencies, i.e., both these POD modes and [M][φ]
[Λ] are excellent vehicles for the BWLDs. These POD
modes and structural modes/frequencies can be specifically
selected by the background response participation factor
and Ritz-POD method, respectively. Solving the column
vector-{C} in the least square is not unlike that in
Katsumura et al. (1994, 2005a, 2005b, 2007) and Tamura
and Katsumura (2012).
The studies of Chen et al. (Chen et al. 2012, 2014) and
Yang et al. (2013) selected some vertical node displace-
ments and support reactions in a roof to analyze their
fluctuating ESWLs and verified the superiority of the
admired method by comparing these responses.
Apart from considering the background ESWLs, the
method also contains the resonant ESWLs moderately,
which surpasses Katsumura et al. (Katsumura et al. 1994,
2005a, 2005b, 2007) and Tamura and Katsumura (2012).
As a matter of fact, when solving {C}, the method can be
boiled down to a least-square solution without any con-
stricts, thereupon, the above-mentioned mathematical
weaknesses in Katsumura et al. (Katsumura et al. 1994,
22
2005a, 2005b, 2007) and Tamura and Katsumura (2012)
will come to pass.
Luo et al. (2017) also took interest in the fluctuating
UESWLs on long-span roofs. In this method, the gener-
alized resuming force of fluctuating wind loads and
multiple-order SMIFs is exploited for getting access to its
covariance matrix and then the useful POD modes, namely
the BWLDs which are so unlike those of Chen et al. (Chen
et al. 2012, 2014) and Yang et al. (2013). Then, much like
Katsumura et al. (Katsumura et al. 1994, 2005a, 2005b,
2007) and Tamura and Katsumura (2012), the UESWLs
{PE,f} is linearly superposed by these POD modes. To
moderate those erratic and irrational ESWLs, every
UESWL’s absolute value will be constrained within a
reasonable range by the constraint factor and the extreme
generalized restoring forces (Luo et al., 2017):
 
 PE, f  ≤ α b
pE, f (51)
where α is the pre-determined constraint factor; and fb
pE, f g
is the column vector of the extreme generalized restoring
forces, in which the ith value can be expressed as (Luo
et al., 2017):
b
pE, f i ¼ gσ pe, i (52a)
8 9
>
> σ pe, 1 >
> 
< = qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
σ pe, 2
σ pe ¼ ¼ diag Cpp (52b)
>
> « > >
: ;
σ pe, N
where {σ pe} is the RMS value column vector of the
generalized restoring forces; diag() is a mathematical
operator for taking the diagonal elements in a matrix to a
column vector; and [Cpp] matches equation (15).
When solving {C}, the equation set comes down to a
least-square solution with constraint condition of equation
(51), the looser constraint condition, apparently, will breed
the more favorable solution. Luo et al. (2017) studied a
roof’s ESWLs based on some largest displacements, in
which α is recommended to take the range from 1 to 2. The
ESWLs with constraints become better in controlling their
value range, although there is a slight discrepancy between
the accurate WISRs and the approximate ESWLs-ISRs.
Although equation (51) can relieve those erratic and
irrational ESWLs in some degree, it is more likely that the
ESWLs-ISRs are unequal to the actual WISRs under the
rigorous constraint condition and a lot of WISRs, which
will devalue the constraint effect. So, this method basically
inherits the same traits of Katsumura et al. (Katsumura et al.
1994, 2005a, 2005b, 2007) and Tamura and Katsumura
(2012).
The method resorting to the RMS wind loads. With the help of
the gust response envelop (GRE) method, Cao et al. (2018)
Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)
and Su et al. (2018) also adopted the Two-Component-
Method to put forward the UESWLs on cantilevered
grandstand roofs, in which the fluctuating ESWLs take the
form of:
PE, f ¼ ± g½Kfσ d g ≈ ±gμr μb fσ P g ¼ ± gμfσ P g (53)
where {σ d} fetches the column vector of displacement
RMS WISRs; μr is the resonant factor reflecting dynamic
effect; μb is the background factor to portray the correlation
of wind loads on structures; μ=μrμb forms the GRE factor;
and {σ p} takes the known RMS wind loads corresponding
to the RMS WISRs.
In equation (53), μr and μb turn to (Cao et al., 2018, Su
et al., 2018):
fσ r, B g ¼ μb fσ r, 0 g (54a)
fσ r g ¼ μr fσ r, B g (54b)
where {σ r,B} and {σ r} request the RMS vectors from the
known background and total dynamic WISRs, respec-
tively; and {σ r,0} is composed of the basic WISRs par-
ticularly induced by the completely correlated loads (Cao
et al., 2018, Su et al., 2018):

1
fσ r, 0 g ¼ abs ½I½K fσ P g
(55)
where [K] is the known structural stiffness matrix in this
paper; []1 is to get a square matrix’s inverse matrix; abs()
means finding the absolute values.
The solutions of μr and μb are (Cao et al., 2018, Su et al.,
2018):
μb ¼ pinvðfσ r, 0 gÞfσ r, B g (56a)
μr ¼ pinvðfσ r, B gÞfσ r g (56b)
In consideration of engineering convenience, μ is empir-
ically provided (Cao et al., 2018):
" #
a
μ ¼ 1 þ pffiffiffi exp ðbfn Þ μb (57)
ξ
where a and b are two parameters to be statistically de-
termined together with μb. a is recommended to be 0.3 and
0.2 for the rectangular and arc-shaped plane roofs, re-
spectively; b is recommended as 1.5; μb=0.85 and
μb=0.9 are suggested for the rectangular and arc-shaped
plane roofs, respectively; ξ=the structural damping ratio in
this paper; and fn=the first structural Hz frequency in
general.
By contrasting the ESWLs-ISRs with the target WISRs
and confronting the ESWLs with some national standards, the
method is proved to lead an advantageous approximation.
Sun et al.
What distinguishes the method from the previous
UESWLs methods is its ingenious ability to discard the
vital problem of constructing multiple well-behaved
BWLDs elaborately, while replace them with one syn-
thetic value of {σ p} for the other target WISRs, which
dramatically reduces the computation for application
convenience. However, this method’s accuracy is highly
dependent on pinv({σ r,0}) and pinv({σ r,B}) just from a
mathematical point of view, it is evident that the more
elements in {σ r,0} and {σ r,B} and the bigger difference of
the special distribution characteristics between {σ r,0} and
{σ r,B} will lead to the worse errors, so the compromise
between the determination of the target WISRs and the
accuracy, an intractable issue, pops up again. Moreover, the
fluctuating ESWLs for the other target WISRs excepting
the target displacement are proportional to {σ p}, it is
somewhat short of clear physical meaning to bracket to-
gether the ESWLs shape with {σ p}, especially for the
complicated-shaped roofs. The method still specializes in
the maximum target WISRs with its inability to consider
their correlation. For the structures as simple as canti-
levered plate-like roofs, it seems precise, because the first
structural mode is dominant, leading to the strong re-
sponse synchronization. For the other complicated-
shaped structures, the same adversities in the previous
UESWLs methods may occur, which requires further
discussion.
In this section, if there are plenty of WISRs in a long-
span roof, but some of which are allocated to solve the
whole structure’s ESWLs, the methods of (Katsumura
et al., 1994, 2005a, 2005b, 2007; Tamura and
Katsumura, 2012, Chen et al., 2012, 2014; Yang et al.,
2013, Luo et al., 2017), the uncompensated and com-
pensated methods in Sun and Zhang (2020) and the POD
compensated method in Sun et al. (2015) can undertake the
job. In such context, the terms in [I] corresponding to the
selected WISRs are merely retained to solve the least-
square solution of the associated linear equation set. For the
solutions without constraints or with the constraint in
equation (51), the errors between the selected WISRs and
their corresponding ESWLs-ISRs are smaller than the ones
between the unselected WISRs and their corresponding
ESWLs-ISRs.
In addition, provided that a long-span roof possesses a
great mass of WISRs, all of which will take part in the
structural ESWLs, however, only a handful of them are
privileged to equal their corresponding ESWLs-ISRs, and
the rest of the WISRs approximate to their corresponding
ESWLs-ISRs. The ESWLs catering to the above needs
belong to the least-square method with equality-constraint
when the least-square solution is applied (Sun and Zhang,
2020). Keeping to the premises for one solution in Sun and
Zhang (2020), the methods of (Tamura and Katsumura,
2012, Chen et al., 2012, 2014; Yang et al., 2013, Luo et al.,
23
2017), the uncompensated and compensated methods in
Sun and Zhang (2020) and the POD compensated method
in Sun et al. (2015) can fulfill the task. The equality
constraint, as compared with the least-square solution ir-
respective of any constraints, will deteriorate the errors
between all the WISRs and their corresponding ESWLs-
ISRs, albeit no errors come up in the selected WISRs (Sun
and Zhang, 2020).
The Methods based on WISS
Strength, stiffness, and stability are three important con-
cerns in the designs of structures and structural compo-
nents. In trying to see into the WISRs-related
ESWLs which are counted as the strength- and stiffness-
aimed questions, the WISS-dependent ESWLs of long-
span roofs should also gain attention. The ESWLs con-
cerned with WISRs are ill-suited to the WISS analyses for
some long-span roofs whose stability is of significance, too
(Li and Tamura, 2004, 2005).
By implementing the Two-Component-Method, Li and
Tamura (Li and Tamura, 2004, 2005) embarked on the most
unfavorable ESWLs of a single-layer reticulated shell. In
this approach, the mean ESWLs- fPE g , based on the load
code in effect, is obtained from the reference wind pressure
(Li and Tamura, 2004, 2005):
n o
PE ¼ μz μs w0 fAg (58)
where μz is the height variation factor; μs is the shape factor;
w0 is the reference wind pressure at the site; and {A} is the
corresponding tributary area vector of a shell.
Then, to gain the fluctuating ESWLs, a stability analysis
is conducted under the load combination of the dead load
{PD}, the live load {PL} and fPE g (Li and Tamura, 2004,
2005):
n o
Ptemp ¼ CD fPD g þCL fPL g þ CW PE (59)
where CD, CL and CW are the corresponding combination
coefficients, respectively. Usually the vectors {PD}, {PL}
and CD, CL and CW can be determined according to the
load code.
Just prior to the occurrence of the instability point in the
equilibrium path, an eigenvalue analysis of the current
tangent stiffness matrix-[KT] of the structure in static
nonlinear iteration is carried out to obtain the current
possible instability mode-{υ}, the first eigenvector is uti-
lized as a rule. Next, a most unfavorable distribution of
fluctuating wind loads {ε} is (Li and Tamura, 2004, 2005):
fεg ¼ ½KT fυg (60)
24
In the end, after normalizing {ε}, the structural estimated
fluctuating ESWLs {PE,f} can be obtained (Li and Tamura,
2004, 2005):
PE, f ¼ fεi Ai ggρV 0 σ v (61)
where {εi} is the normalized vector of {ε}, and can be taken
as the most unfavorable distribution estimation of the
fluctuating wind loads; {Ai} is the vector of the tributary
area at node i; and σ v is the RMS value of the reference
wind speed.
Since the fluctuating wind loads are random, the pos-
sible instability mode is used as a most unfavorable esti-
mation of their ESWLs. Therefore, this method can supply
a conservative estimation for the effects of the fluctuating
wind loads on the structural deformation and stability (Li
and Tamura, 2004, 2005). It can also determine a suitable
reference displacement WISR for using the Holmes’s
method of (Holmes, 2002, 2007). The method in combi-
nation with Holmes’s method can judge the ESWLs for
structural deformation and stability analyses efficiently (Li
and Tamura, 2004, 2005). However, it is powerless to
consider the dynamic instability since it only considers the
quasi-static stability under fPE g in essence. Accordingly,
the instability mode for the ESWLs may be not the actual
one under total wind loads, lacking an explicit physical
meaning.
Inspired by the GRF method, Gu and Huang (2015)
followed a similar pattern to delve into a roof’s dynamic
instability-led ESWLs, which is equal to the mean wind
loads multiplied by a dynamic instability factor:
b
pðx, y, zÞ ¼ φD  pðx, y, zÞ (62)
where bpðx, y, zÞ is the ESWL at (x,y,z); pðx, y, zÞ is the mean
wind load corresponding to the structural design wind
velocity; and φD is the dynamic instability factor which is
defined by (Gu and Huang, 2015):
φD ¼ fS =fD (63)
where fS and fD are the critical wind load incremental
factors, as determined by the nonlinear static and dynamic
stability analyses of the structure, respectively.
φD indicates the influence of the dynamic wind loads
acted on structural stability. fS is determined by the static
stability analysis under proportionally increasing load of
f  pðx, y, zÞ, in which f is the wind load incremental factor.
When determining fD and the dynamic failure types, the
well-received Budiansky-Roth criterion and a bilinear ki-
nematic hardening elastoplastic model are adopted,
respectively.
Wang et al. (2020) took charge of the method of Gu and
Huang (2015) but considered three kinds of wind-induced
failure modes under different rise-span ratios: (1) the elastic
Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)
dynamic instability failure for the elastic state of the whole
structure, (2) the elastoplastic dynamic instability failure
for the plastic state of some members in the structure, and
(3) the plastic dynamic strength failure for the entire
structure’s plastic state. During the determination of the
critical wind load incremental factors, they take account of
the full combination of the Budiansky-Roth and Hsu S. C.
criteria aiming at the stable or unstable post-failure load-
displacement curves.
The ESWLs of Gu and Huang (2015) and Wang et al.
(2020) become simple by borrowing the GRF measure.
Furthermore, because the critical static wind load incre-
mental factor under the ESWLs equals to the critical dy-
namic wind load incremental factor, the static stability
design under the ESWLs can produce the real dynamic
instability factor in the dynamic wind loads (Gu and
Huang, 2015) which expressly validates its physical
meaning. In Davenport’s GRF, both the mean and maxi-
mum WISRs come from a same peak WISR. But the static
wind load incremental factors issue from the maximum
static displacements of all nodes, when the mean wind
loads mount up proportionally, these displacements might
not be in a same DOF, which agrees with the dynamic wind
load incremental factors. Even then, the two kinds of in-
cremental factors perhaps also do not show up on the same
DOF. If a critical wind load incremental factor can char-
acterize an instability mode indirectly, the instability mode
under the ESWLs, for the above-analyzed reason, does not
necessarily reproduce the actual dynamic instability mode
at least for their maximum displacements, which will thus
dilute their practicability.
Conclusions
Generating the ESWLs on long-span roofs is an important
subject for structural engineering because it can short-
circuit structural design through bypassing complex
computation. At present, the studies concerning the
ESWLs on long-span roofs run into some bottlenecks, there
is a strong need to tease out these existing methods and
point out their future research directions. To advance this
topic, this paper presents a comprehensively retrospective
look at the existing ESWLs methods in long-span roofs.
They can be subdivided into two broad categories, namely,
the methods related to the WISRs and the WISS, in which
most methods center on WISRs and fewer methods are
based on WISS.
In order to characterize the features of the preselected
WISRs of different structures better, the WISRs-relied
ESWLs are further divided into the single and multiple
target equivalent methods, in which some important
mathematical and mechanical means are employed to
derive different methods. The single target equivalent
methods are conditioned by the target WISR. There are the
Sun et al.
following achievements in the GRF-based methods: (1) For
some special structures whose responses are very much
dictated by their first structural modes, the synchronization
characteristics of the responses can result in a constant GRF
for one whole roof whose concise parametrical expression
is useful to design an actual engineering; (2) The ESWLs
for internal forces, stresses and nodal accelerations are
required to satisfy the different needs of structural designs;
and (3) For the sake of safety, some structures also need to
consider the effect of weak nonlinearity on the ESWLs.
The LRC-based methods own the outputs below: (1) The
Two- or Three-Component Methods are well established
according to one target WISR’s different components; and
(2) When the ESWLs correlate with structural modes, the
mode coupling and the cross correlation can be computed
to improve the accuracy. In the single target equivalent
methods, the target WISR’s determination will make a
great difference on the ESWLs. Because selecting one
proper target WISR is often knotty, the multiple target
equivalent methods probably become wiser, in which: (1)
Multiple BWLDs constructed by some mathematical and
mechanical tools are linearly combined to obtain the
ESWLs, whose values can be rationalized and optimized
by the compensation tools and the linear least-square
methods with certain constraints; and (2) Analogously to
the single target equivalent methods, for some special
structures with few dominant structural modes to their
WISRs, the well-received parametrical expressions can be
channeled into the UESWLs.
The WISS of long-span roofs mainly occurs in single-
layer shells, and other long-span structures are not prone to
WISS. Their WISS-based ESWLs are equally imperative
because they are very different from the WISRs-related
ESWLs. Different mechanisms will introduce different
instability modes, by which the existing methods try to map
out limited ESWLs models.
By exploring all these existing approaches, it can be
concluded that they are heading for simple computation,
plain physical meaning, high accuracy, and convenience
for the ongoing application within the engineering field.
While some achievements have been made, their appli-
cations are still restricted. For a couple of promising
methods to be viably employed in engineering practices
soon, the subsequent research can double down on a few
pivotal questions:
(1) When the ESWLs are WISRs-conscious, the
number and values of the targeted WISRs should
be precise beforehand, for which there is currently
no cure in the existing methods.
(2) When the ESWLs of single-layer shells are WISS-
oriented, the instability mode under the ESWLs
should agree with the one under the actual total
wind loads at least for the maximum displacement,
25
which is not be efficiently disposed by some silver
bullets. Currently, there are few WISS studies of
single-layer shells under actual wind loads, and
their resulting WISS mechanism or instability
mode, one more meaningful topic, is unclear, re-
tarding the studies on the customized ESWLs.
(3) The current methods only take aim at WISRs and
WISS separately, if both are expected to be con-
sidered in a structure, how to find such ESWLs will
be worthwhile.
(4) The methods are geared toward the common wind
loads, especially the stationary Gaussian-distribution
ones. The structural ESWLs for the little-seen wind
loads (like tornado and thunderstorm winds) or the
multiple disasters (for instance, wind and rain) are a
blank, and merit profound consideration.
By resolving these knots, the ESWLs will be raised to
a new height, and will speed up the development of
long-span roofs. At the same time, the other engineering
structures will profit from them, because many methods are
versatile.
Acknowledgements
This project is fully supported by the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (CUG2013059013), the
2021 First-class course “Principle of Reinforced Concrete
Structure” of Hubei Province, and City University of Hong Kong
(Project No.: 7005770 and 9667237), which is gratefully
acknowledged.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with re-
spect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
work was supported by the City University of Hong Kong (Project
No: 7005770 and 9667237) and Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities (CUG2013059013).
ORCID iDs
Wuyi Sun  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5705-1392
Meixia Zhang  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2576-5697
References
Biglieri E, Yao K and Angeles L (1989) Some properties of SVD
and their application to digital signal processing. Signal
Processing 19: 277–289.
26
Blaise N and Denoel V (2013) Principal static wind loads. Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 113:
29–39.
Blaise N, Hamra L and Denoel V (2012) Principal static wind
loads on a large roof structure. In: Proceedings of the 12th
ANIV Conference of Wind Engineering in Vento. October 7-
10, 2012. Venice, Italy. pp. 1–12.
Cao ZG, Su N, Wu Y, et al. (2018) Gust esponse envelop approach
to the equivalent static wind load for large-span grandstand
roofs. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aero-
dynamics 180: 108–121.
Chen XZ and Kareem A (2001) Equivalent static wind loads for
buffeting response of bridges. Journal of Structural Engi-
neering 127(12): 1467–1475.
Chen XZ and Kareem A (2004) Equivalent static wind loads on
buildings: new model. Journal of Structural Engineering
130(10): 1425–1435.
Chen B and Yang QS (2019) Universal equivalent static wind
loads of China national stadium. In: The Seventh Asia-
Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering. Taipei, China.
November 8-12, 2009.
Chen XZ and Zhou N (2007) Equivalent static wind loads on low-
rise buildings based on full-scale pressure measurements.
Engineering Structures 29(10): 2563–2575.
Chen B, Wu Y and Shen SZ (2006) Equivalent static wind loads
on large span roofs. In: Proceedings of IASS-APCS Sym-
posium. Beijing, China. October 1-2, 2006. pp. 1–8.
Chen B, Yang QS and Wu Y (2012) Wind-induced response and
equivalent static wind loads of long span roofs. Advances in
Structural Engineering 15(7): 1099–1114.
Chen B, Yan XY and Yang QS (2014) Wind-induced response and
universal equivalent static wind loads of single layer reticular
dome shells. International Journal of Structural Stability
and Dynamics 14(4): 1450008.
Chen B, Wang K, Chao JQ, et al. (2018) Equivalent static wind
loads on single-layer cylindrical steel shells. Journal of
Structural Engineering 144(7): 04018077.
Choi ECC and Hidayat FA (2002) Dynamic response of structures
to thunderstorm winds. Progress in Structural Engineering
and Materials 4(4): 408–416.
Davenport AG (1961) The application of statistical concepts to the
wind loading of structures. In: Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineering. London, UK. August 4, 1961. pp.
449–472.
Davenport AG (1967) Gust loading factor. Journal of the
Structural Division 93(3): 11–34.
Davenport AG (1995) How can we simplify and generalize wind
load? Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aero-
dynamics 55(3): 657–669.
Davenport AG and Surry D (1984) Turbulent wind forces on a
large span roof and their representation by equivalent static
loads. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 11(4):
955–966.
Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)
Dyrbye C and Hansen SO (1997) Wind Loads on Structures.
Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Frontini G, Argentini T, Rosa L, et al. (2022) Advances in the
application of the principal static wind loads: a large-span.
Engineering Structures 262: 114314.
Fu JY, Xie ZN and Li QS (2008) Equivalent static wind loads on
long-span roof structures. Journal of Structural Engineering
134(7): 1115–1128.
Fu JY, Gao Y, Wu JR, et al. (2015) Wind effects on a long span
steel roof structure: numerical simulation and equivalent
static wind loads. Journal of Vibroengineering 17(5):
2572–2590.
Ginger JD, Reardon GF and Whitbread BJ (2000) Wind load
effects and equivalent pressures on low-rise house roofs.
Engineering Structures 22(6): 638–646.
Gu M and Huang YQ (2015) Equivalent static wind loads for
stability design of large span roof structures. Wind and
Structures 20(1): 95–115.
Gu M and Zhou XY (2009) An approximation method for res-
onant response with coupling modes of structures under
wind action. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 97(11-12): 573–580.
Holmes JD (1990) Analysis and synthesis of pressure fluctuations
on bluff bodies using eigenvectors. Journal of Wind Engi-
neering and Industrial Aerodynamics 33(1-2): 219–230.
Holmes JD (1992) Optimised peak load distribution. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 41(1):
267–276.
Holmes JD (2002) Effective static load distributions in wind
engineering. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 90(2): 91–109.
Holmes JD (2007) Wind Loading of Structures. 2nd edition.
London, UK: Taylor and Francis Group.
Holmes JD, Syme MJ and Kasperski M (1995) Optimised design
of a low-rise industrial building for wind loads. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 57(2-3):
391–401.
Isyumov N (2012) Alan G. Davenport’s mark on wind engi-
neering. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 104–106(1): 12–24.
Kareem A and Zhou Y (2003) Gust loading factor-past, present
and future. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 91(12-15): 1301–1328.
Kasperski M (1992) Extreme wind load distributions for linear
and nonlinear design. Engineering Structures 14(1): 27–34.
Kasperski M and Niemann HJ (1992) The L.R.C.(load-response-
correlation) - method a general method of estimating un-
favourable wind load distributions for linear and non-linear
structural behavior. Journal of Wind Engineering and In-
dustrial Aerodynamics 43(3): 1753–1763.
Katsumura A, Tamura Y and Nakamura O (1994) Universal
equivalent wind load distribution reproducing maximum
load effects on structural members. In: The 5th International
Sun et al.
Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and Applications.
Ottawa, Canada. July 4-5, 1994, pp. 23–30.
Katsumura A, Tamura Y and Nakamura O (2005a) Maximum
wind load effects on a large-span cantilevered roof. Struc-
tural Engineering International 15(4): 248–251.
Katsumura A, Tamura Y and Nakamura O (2005b) Universal
wind load distribution simultaneously reproducing maxi-
mum load effects in all subject members on large-span
cantilevered roof. In: Proceedings of the 4th European
and African Conference on Wind Engineering. Prague,
Czech. July 11-15, 2005, pp. 168–169.
Katsumura A, Tamura Y and Nakamura O (2007) Universal wind
load distribution simultaneously reproducing largest load
effects in all subject members on large-span cantilevered
roof. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerody-
namics 95(9-11): 1145–1165.
Li YQ and Tamura Y (2004) Wind-resistant analysis for large-
span single-layer reticulated shells. International Journal of
Space Structures 19(1): 47–59.
Li YQ and Tamura Y (2005) Equivalent static wind load esti-
mation in wind-resistant design of single-layer reticulated
shells. Wind and Structures 8(6): 443–454.
Lou WJ, Lu F and Sun BN (2000) Study on buffeting response for
flexible roof structures. In: Advances in Structural Dy-
namics. Oxford, UK, August 2-5, 2000, pp. 1519–1526
Luo N, Liao HL and Li MS (2017) An efficient method for
universal equivalent static wind loads on long-span roof
structures. Wind and Structures 25(5): 493–506.
Luo N, Jia HY and Liao HL (2018) Coupled wind-induced re-
sponses and equivalent static wind loads on long-span roof
structures with the consistent load–response–correlation
method. Advances in Structural Engineering 21(1): 71–81.
Ma TT, Zhao L, Ji TF, et al. (2022) Case study of wind-induced
performance and equivalent static wind loads of large-span
openable truss structures. Thin-Walled Structures 175:
109206.
Macdonald AJ (1975) Wind Loading on Buildings. London, UK:
Applied Science Publishers LTD.
Marukawa H, Uematsu Y, Tamura Y, et al. (1993) Design wind
load on a flat long-span roofs. In: Proceedings of the 4th East
Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and
Construction. Seoul, Korea. July 10-12, 1993, pp. 35–46.
Repetto MP and Solari G (2004) Equivalent static wind actions on
vertical structures. Journal of Wind Engineering and In-
dustrial Aerodynamics 92(5): 335–357.
27
Rizzo F, Bedon C, Mansour S, et al. (2023) Dynamics of a flexible
roof test model under ambient vibrations measurements.
Applied Aciences 13: 4135.
Shen SZ and Yang QS (1999) Wind-induced response analysis and
wind-resistant design of hyperbolic paraboloid cable net struc-
tures. International Journal of Space Structures 14(1): 57–65.
Solari G and Carassale L (2000) Modal transformation tools in
structural dynamics and wind engineering. Wind and
Structures 3(4): 221–241.
Su N, Peng ST and Hong NN (2018) Analyzing the background
and resonant effects of wind-induced responses on large-
span roofs. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 183: 114–126.
Sun WY and Zhang QH (2020) Universal equivalent static wind load
of fluctuating wind on large-span roofs based on compensation
for structural frequency and mode. Structures 26: 92–104.
Sun WY, Gu M and Zhou XY (2015) Universal equivalent static
wind loads of fluctuating wind loads on large-span roofs
based on POD compensation. Advances in Structural En-
gineering 18(9): 1443–1459.
Suzuki M, Sanada S, Hayami Y, et al. (1997) Prediction of wind-
induced response of a semi-rigid hanging roof. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 72(1-3):
357–366.
Tamura Y and Katsumura A (2012) Universal equivalent static
wind load for structures. In: The Seventh International
Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and Applications
(BBAA7). Shanghai, China. September 2-6, 2012, pp.
383–392.
Tamura Y, Fujii K and Ueda H (1992) Design wind loads for
beams supporting flat roofs. Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics 41-44(1-3): 1841–1852.
Tamura Y, Suganuma S, Kikuchi H, et al. (1999) Proper or-
thogonal decomposition of random wind pressure field.
Journal of Fluids and Structures 13(7-8): 1069–1095.
Uematsu Yand Yamada M (2002) Wind-induced dynamic response
and its load estimation for structural frames of circular flat
roofs with long spans. Wind and Structures 5(1): 49–60.
Uematsu Y and Yamamura R (2019) Wind loads for designing the
main wind-force resisting systems of cylindrical free-
standing canopy roofs. Technical Transactions 7: 125–143.
Uematsu Y, Yamada M and Sasaki A (1996) Wind-induced dy-
namic response and resultant load estimation for a flat long-
span roof. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 65(1-3): 155–166.
28
Uematsu Y, Yamada M, Inoue A, et al. (1997) Wind loads and
wind-induced dynamic behavior of a single-layer latticed
dome. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aero-
dynamics 66(3): 227–248.
Uematsu Y, Yamada M and Karasu A (1997a) Design wind loads
for structural frames of flat long-span roofs: gust loading
factor for the beams supporting roofs. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 66(1): 35–50.
Uematsu Y, Yamada M and Karasu A (1997b) Design wind loads
for structural frames of flat long-span roofs: gust loading
factor for a structurally integrated type. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 66(2): 155–168.
Uematsu Y, Watanabe K, Sasaki A, et al. (1999) Wind-induced
dynamic response and resultant load estimation of a circular
flat roof. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 83(1-3): 251–261.
Uematsu Y, Kuribara O, Yamada M, et al. (2001) Wind-induced
dynamic behavior and its load estimation for a single-layer
latticed dome with a long span. Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics 89: 1671–1687.
Uematsu Y, Sone T, Yamada M, et al. (2002) Wind-induced
dynamic response and its load estimation for structural
frames of single-layer latticed domes with long spans. Wind
and Structures 5(6): 543–562.
Uematsu Y, Iizumi E and Stathopoulos T (2007) Wind force coeffi-
cients for designing free-standing canopy roofs. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 95: 1486–1510.
Uematsu Y, Moteki T and Hongo T (2008) Model of wind
pressure field on circular flat roofs and its application to load
estimation. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 96(6): 1003–1014.
Uematsu Y, Sakurai H, Miyamoto Y, et al. (2013) Wind forces
coefficients for designing porous canopy roof. Journal of
Civil Engineering and Architecture 7(9): 1047–1055.
Uematsu Y, Miyamoto Yand Gavansky E (2014) Wind loading on
a hyperbolic paraboloid free roof. Journal of Civil Engi-
neering and Architecture 8(10): 1233–1242.
Uematsu Y, Miyamoto Y and Gavansky E (2015) Effect of porosity
on the wind loads on a hyperbolic paraboloid canopy roof.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 9(6): 715–726.
Wang JL, Guo H, Li H, et al. (2020) Wind-induced dynamic
failure mechanism and equivalent static wind load of single-
layer latticed Barrel Vaults. International Journal of Heat
and Technology 38(2): 418–424.
Advances in Structural Engineering 0(0)
Wang XH, Huang ZY, Chen B, et al. (2020) Equivalent static wind
loads on plate-like flat roofs: Data-based closed form.
Journal of Structural Engineering 146(6): 04020099.
Wang ZK, Wang XH, Zhao H, et al. (2023) Equivalent static wind
loads on canopies of regular railway stations. Engineering
Structures 276: 115336.
Wu HY (2007) Numerical evaluation of equivalent static wind
loads of long-span roofs. Available at: http://www.paper.edu.
cn (China Science and Technology Papers Online).
Yang QS, Chen B, Wu Y, et al. (2013) Wind-induced response and
equivalent static wind load of long-span roof structures by
combined Ritz-proper orthogonal decomposition method.
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics
139(6): 997–1008.
Zhou XY and Gu M (2010) An approximation method for
computing the dynamic responses and equivalent static
wind loads of large-span roof structures. International
Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics 10(5):
1141–1165.
Zhou Y and Kareem A (2001) Gust loading factor: new model.
Journal of Structural Engineering 127(2): 168–175.
Zhou Y, Kareem A and Gu M (1999) Gust loading factors for
design applications. In: Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Wind Engineering. Copenhagen, Denmark.
August 5-7, 1999, pp. 169–176.
Zhou Y, Kareem A and Gu M (2000) Equivalent static buffeting
loads on structures. Journal of Structural Engineering
126(8): 989–992.
Zhou XY, Gu M and Li G (2012) Grouping response method for
equivalent static wind loads based on a modified LRC
method. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration
11(1): 107–119.
Zhou XY, Gu M and Li G (2013) ESWL for large-span roof based
on grouping response method. In: The Eighth Asia-Pacific
Conference on Wind Engineering. Chennai, India. Decem-
ber 10-14, 2013, pp. 1–11.
Zhou XY, Han ZH, Gu M, et al. (2013) Research on wind-
induced responses of a large-scale membrane structure.
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 12(2):
297–305.
Zhou XY, Gu M and Li G (2014) Constrained least-squares
method for computing equivalent static wind loads of
large-span roofs. Advances in Structural Engineering
17(10): 1497–1515.