4th American Association for Wind Engineering Workshop

Miami, Florida, USA

August 14 - 16, 2016

Wind-induced loads on canopies attached to medium-rise

buildings

Amir Naeiji a,*, Manuel Matus a, Ioannis Zisis a

a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and International Hurricane Research
Center, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

ABSTRACT:
Flat canopies are often used at the entrances of mid-rise buildings to protect residents from the elements as well as
temporary parking location for vehicles. Current wind standards and building codes of practice do not include
specific guidelines for the wind design of such structures. To address this lack of prior research, an experimental
study was carried out to investigate the effect of wind flow on a flat canopy attached to a mid-rise building in a
simulated open country terrain exposure condition. A scale of 1:20 was used to construct the building and canopy
models. Several configurations of the canopy attached at different locations of the parent building were tested in
order to determine their effect on the wind-induced loads. More specifically, the canopy length, tilt angle,
installation height and building height were modified, resulting in 17 different configurations. Wind direction varied
from 0 to 180 for symmetric configurations and from 0 to 360 for asymmetric ones. The pressure coefficient
distribution at both the upper and lower surfaces of the canopy is presented. Moreover, the net pressure and net force
coefficients (area-averaged) on the canopy are presented and provide valuable input for the codification of the
experimental findings.

Keywords: Wind pressure, attached canopy, mid-rise building, wind tunnel testing, pressure and force coefficients.

1. INTRODUCTION
It is quite common in medium-rise buildings to have a canopy attached to one of its sides and at
lower heights to provide partial protection from precipitation to the people entering the building.
These structures are often lightweight and suffer from significant damage during extreme wind
events. Moreover, they may cause damage to the parent building or adjacent structures as
potential debris trajectories.

Current wind standards and building codes of practice do not provide guidelines on the design of
canopies attached to mid-rise buildings. The majority of previous studies focused on attached
canopies to low-rise buildings (Paluch et al., 2003, Candelario et al., 2014, Candelario et al.,
2015). Roh and Kim (2011) performed a numerical simulation to investigate the wind-induced
pressure distribution on several L-shaped mid-rise and tall buildings for three different wind
directions. The effect of building height to canopy height ratio, wind direction and canopy size
on the wind pressures was investigated. They showed that for the ratio of building height to the
canopy height equal to 4, the upward and downward pressures cancel out each other and as
result, net pressure coefficient would be negligible, while for the height ratio of 2, the dominant
force on the canopy would be uplift. The numerical studys results were compared to the
previous experimental studies and it was concluded that canopies attached to the L-shaped model
experienced lower values compared to the previous studies.
1
 4th American Association for Wind Engineering Workshop
Miami, Florida, USA
August 14 - 16, 2016

This study aims to investigate the wind-induced load on canopies attached to mid-rise buildings.
A total of 17 different configurations were tested in order to evaluate the pressures and forces
acting on the canopy. The findings of this study will be utilized towards the development of
design wind loads and enrichment of building codes and wind standards.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Testing facility and instrumentation

The study has been carried out to assess the impact of various geometric parameters and
configurations under wind-induced loading on a canopy attached to a mid-rise building. A 1:20
scale model of a typical mid-rise building structure with an instrumented canopy panel has been
constructed and tested in a simulated boundary layer flow at the 12-fan Wall of Wind (WOW)
facility of Florida International University (FIU).

The mean wind speed and turbulence intensity profiles were calculated from the speed
measurements by using Pitot-static tubes and Cobra probes mounted at different heights at the
center of the test section at the WOW facility without the model in place. The corresponding
average velocity and longitudinal turbulence intensity (Iu) profiles are shown in Figure 1 as a
function of height. It has been observed that a power law exponent of = 0.18 provides the best
agreement with the measured values, which conforms to full-scale measurements of open terrain
exposure.

2.2. Partial turbulence simulation approach

The WOW facility was designed for large-scale wind tunnel tests. Large-scale models have the
advantage of modelling the small details that cannot be captured in smaller scales. This feature is
helpful for cases like medium to low-rise buildings. However, using large-scale models the low-
frequency part of the wind speed spectrum will be missed. At the WOW facility the Partial
Turbulence Simulation (PTS) method is used to compensate for the missing part of the frequency
spectrum (Mooneghi, 2014; Mooneghi et al., 2014; Mooneghi et al., 2015). The high-frequency
part of the spectrum is simulating at the WOW facility.

2.3. Model description

A wooden model of scale 1:20 was used as parent building to which different canopies of the
same scale were attached at different positions (horizontally and vertically). A second structure
was used to modify the height of the parent structure by attaching it to the roof of the parent
building. The external full-scale dimensions of the parent building are 36.58 by 24.9 by 24.38 m
(length, height and width, without the detachable structure) and 36.58 by 31 by 24.38 m (length,
height and width, with the detachable structure). Both configurations have a flat roof with a
51.82 cm parapet. The walls of the building consist of 14 wall segments of unique dimensions
that may be arranged in different ways to allow 17 different canopy configurations, as shown in
Table 1.

2
 4th American Association for Wind Engineering Workshop
Miami, Florida, USA
August 14 - 16, 2016

2.00 2.00
Power Law
Height (m) 1.50 1.50

Height (m)
1.00 1.00

0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00
50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Wind Speed (km/h) Turbulence Intensity

Figure 1. Mean velocity (left) and turbulence intensity profile (right)

Four canopy models were built, which consist of three parts, a) frame, b) top surface and c)
bottom surface. The frame of the canopy was built using a single piece of wood to give
resistance to vibration. The top and bottom surfaces were built out of acrylic sheets, which were
glued and screwed to the canopy frame. Two of the canopies extend to one third of the length of
the parent building (12.20 m) with the difference that one of them has a zero-degree inclination
angle () and the other has a 5-degree inclination angle (to achieve +5 or -5 degrees the canopy
needs to be flipped and attached). The remaining two canopies extend to one half of the length of
the parent building (18.30 m) with the difference that one of them has a zero-degree inclination
() angle and the other has a 5-degree inclination angle (to achieve +5 or -5 degrees the canopy
needs to be flipped and attached). The widths of all canopies are fixed to 6.10 m. Pressure taps
were placed at both top and bottom surfaces of the canopies at almost the same locations to form
pressure tap pairs that enable the determination of net pressure coefficients. Pressure tap location
for one-third and one-half canopy models are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. The
one-third canopy has 72 pressure taps and the one-half canopy has 104 pressure taps.

Figure 2. One-third (12.2 m) canopy pressure taps (full-scale dimensions in m).

3
 4th American Association for Wind Engineering Workshop
Miami, Florida, USA
August 14 - 16, 2016

Figure 3. One-half (18.3 m) canopy pressure taps (full-scale dimensions in m).

Table 1. Details of the test configurations in equivalent full-scale dimensions.

Canopy Canopy Canopy Building Canopy Tilt Wind Direction
Case
length (m) Location Height (m) Height (m) (degrees) (degrees)
1 4.57 31 0
2 Center 7.62 31 0 0-180
3 10.67 31 0
4 4.57 25 0
5 7.62 25 0
6 12.20 Center 10.67 25 0 0-180
7 4.57 25 -5*
8 4.57 25 +5*
9 4.57 25 0
10 Corner 7.62 25 0 0-360
11 10.67 25 0
12 4.57 25 0
13 Center 7.62 25 0 0-180
14 10.67 25 0
18.30
15 4.57 25 0
16 Corner 7.62 25 0 0-360
17 10.67 25 0

*Tilted downward (-5 degrees) and tilted upward (5 degrees).

For the test, the model was rotated clockwise at 15-degree increments from 0 to 345 degrees
when canopy was attached to the corner of the parent building; while it was rotated from 0 to 180
degrees when canopy was attached to the center of the parent building.

The dimensionless pressure and force coefficients were calculated based on the concepts
presented in section 4.2 of Holmes (2015). Throughout the paper, pressure coefficients () were
calculated based on the formula (2.1). To calculate net pressure coefficients, the formula (2.2)
was used. The dimensionless force coefficients () were calculated in accordance with the
formula (2.3).

4
 4th American Association for Wind Engineering Workshop
Miami, Florida, USA
August 14 - 16, 2016

= (2.1)
(12) 2

, (t) = C, (t) C, (t) (2.2)

=
(2.3)

In these equations, is the recorded pressure at the tap location; is the atmospheric pressure;
is the density of air; is the mean wind speed at the mean roof height of the building;
Cp, net(t) is the net pressure coefficient on the canopy at the time step t; Cp, upper(t) is the pressure
coefficient on the upper surface of the canopy at the time step t; Cp, lower(t) is the pressure
coefficient on the lower surface of the canopy at the time step t; and is the area attributed to
the pressure tap .

The pressures on the top and bottom surfaces of the canopy are important for the design of the
canopy. On the other hand, the overall design and the load transferred from the connection to the
building should be based on the total load applied to the canopy. Therefore, the concept of net
pressures is used; at each tap location, and at each time step, the pressure on the bottom surface
is deducted from the pressure on the top surface to calculate the net pressure coefficient. The
same procedure is used to calculate the net force coefficient on the canopy. All pressures and
force coefficients presented in this study are averaged over 3-second time intervals.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Both sides of the canopy were instrumented in order to monitor the wind-induced pressure at
both top and bottom surfaces. Figure 4 illustrates the pressure distribution for a representative
case (i.e. Case 4 - canopy attached to the center of the parent wall of the 25-meters-high
building) and for 90-degree wind direction which was found to be one of the most critical
directions. It should be noted that these values are pressure coefficients; i.e. single pressure taps
or pressure tap sets. The mean net pressure coefficient contour plot indicates a negligible suction
behavior. The peak (maximum/minimum) pressure coefficients show higher values. The net
maximum Cp reached the value of 2.7 and the net minimum Cp reached the value of -3.1.

3.1. Effect of Geometrical Properties on Peak Pressure Coefficients

Figure 5 (a) and (b) show the effect of building heights on local net peak pressure coefficients on
canopies with zero tilt angle and installation height of 7.62 m (second-floor) and 10.67 m (third
floor). As can be seen in Figure 5 (a), maximum local net peak pressure coefficients are
decreased 13% or from 3.41 to 3.01 when the height of the building is increases from 25 m (8-
story) to 31 m (10-story). The minimum local net peak pressure coefficients are decreased 6% or
from -3.69 to -3.91 when the height of the building changes from 25 m (8-story) to 31 m (10-
story). Figure 5 (b) shows that the maximum local net peak pressure coefficients are decreased

5
 4th American Association for Wind Engineering Workshop
Miami, Florida, USA
August 14 - 16, 2016

8% or from 3.54 to 3.27 when the height of the building changes from 25 m (8-story) to 31 m
(10-story), while the minimum local net peak pressure coefficients are decreased 11% or from -
3.64 to -4.05 when the height of the building changed from 25 m (8-story) to 31 m (10-story).

Mean Cp Maximum Cp Minimum Cp

Figure 4. Net pressure distribution on the canopy at 90-degree wind direction (Case 4).

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum

6 6
4 4
2 2
Cp,net

Cp,net

0 0
25 31 25 31
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
H (m) H (m)

b. lc=12.20, ed=12.20, hc=10.67, =0

a. lc=12.20, ed=12.20, hc=7.62, =0

Figure 5. Effect of building height on local net peak pressure coefficients on canopies.

Figure 6 provides the comparison related to the location of the canopy on the local net peak
pressure coefficients. The canopy is attached to the 8-story (25 m tall) building and the canopy is
not tilted. Figure 6 (a), (b) illustrate the comparison between the 12.2 m-long canopy installed at
the center (ed=12.2 m) to the case that the canopy is installed at the corner (ed=0 m). In Figure 6
(a), height of the canopy is 4.57 m (first floor). In this figure, the maximum net pressure
coefficient on the canopy attached to the center is experiencing lower value (3.07) in comparison
to the canopy attached to the corner which is 3.34 (9% increase). The minimum net pressure
coefficient values for the center canopy is -3.75 which is decreased 17% when the canopy is
attached to the corner (-4.37). As shown in Figure 6 (b) (canopy height of 7.62 m or second
floor), the maximum net pressure coefficient on the canopy attached to the center is experiencing
lower value (3.41) in comparison to the canopy attached to the corner which is 3.66 (7%
increase).
6
 4th American Association for Wind Engineering Workshop
Miami, Florida, USA
August 14 - 16, 2016

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum

6 6
4 4
2 2
Cp,net

Cp,net
0 0
12.20 0 9.14 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
ed (m) ed (m)

a. H=25, lc=12.20, hc=10.67, =0 b. H=25, lc=18.3, hc=10.67, =0

Figure 6. Effect of location of the canopy on local net peak pressure coefficients.

Figure 7 depicts the comparison of local net pressure coefficients as a function of the canopy size
(12.20 m is compared to 18.30 m). For all presented models, the canopy is attached to the 8-story
(25 m tall) building and it is not tilted. Figure 7 (a) compares the canopies installed at the center
and at 4.57 m height. The maximum net pressure coefficient is increased 2%, or from 3.07 to
3.12. The minimum net pressure coefficient is decreased 14%, or from -3.75 to -4.29. The
comparison of the canopies installed at the center and height of 7.62 m is presented in Figure 7
(b).

The more complete results related to this study can be found on Naeiji et al. (2016).

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum

6 6

4 4
2
2
0
Cp,net
Cp,net

0 12.20 18.29
-2
12.20 18.29
-2 -4
-4 -6
-6 -8
lc (m) lc (m)

a. H=25, ed=0, hc=7.62, =0 b. H=25, ed=0, hc=10.67, =0

Figure 7. Effect of size of the canopy on local net peak pressure coefficients.

7
 4th American Association for Wind Engineering Workshop
Miami, Florida, USA
August 14 - 16, 2016

4. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the wind-induced loads on attached canopies to medium-rise buildings were
investigated. The most common configurations of canopy and building (canopy length, tilt angle,
installation height and location as well as building height) were tested and their effects on the
sustained wind loads were examined.

The comparison between the models with similar geometry except for the canopy length showed
that increasing the canopy length from 12.20 m to 18.30 m would lead to 3% decrease of
maximum net pressure coefficients and 10% decrease in minimum net pressure coefficients, on
average. Investigation of the canopy installation location was performed by comparison of cases
where canopy was located either close to the building edge or at the center of the parent wall,
while maintaining the same height, tilt angle and length. It was shown that maximum net
pressure coefficient was 9% higher when the canopy was located close to the edge, while the
minimum net pressure coefficient was 22% lower, on average. By changing the building height,
an average of 10% difference was observed between the maximum net pressure coefficients,
however no trend was noted in the case of minimum net pressure coefficients, it was noted that
increasing the building height resulted in 7% decrease, on average.

REFERENCES
ASCE. (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston, VA: ASCE/SEI 7-10.
Candelario, J. D., Raji, F., Naeiji, A., Zisis, I., & Chowdhury, A. G. (2015). Large-scale Wind Testing on
Canopies Attached to Residential Buildings. 14th International Conference in Wind Engineering.
Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Candelario, J. D., Stathopoulos, T., & Zisis, I. (2014). Wind Loading on Attached Canopies: Codification
Study. Journal of Structural Engineering, 140(5), 04014007.
Holmes, J. D. (2015). Wind loading of structures. CRC Press.
Mooneghi, M. A. (2014). Experimental and Analytical Methodologies for Predicting Peak Loads on
Building Envelopes and Roofing Systems. Miami, FL: FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Paper 1846.
Mooneghi, M. A., Irwin, P., & Chowdhury, A. G. (2014). Large-scale testing on wind uplift of roof
pavers. Journal of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics, 128, 22-36.
Mooneghi, M. A., Irwin, P., & Chowdhury, A. G. (2015). Partial turbulence simulation method for small
structures. 14th. International Conference on Wind Engineering.
Naeiji, A., Matus, M., & Zisis, I. (2016). Wind-induced Loads on Canopies Attached to Medium-rise
Buildings. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Emergency Management.
Paluch, M. J., Loredo-Souza, A. M., & Blessmann, J. (2003). Wind loads on attached canopies and their
effect on the pressure distribution over arch-roof industrial buildings. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 91(8), 975-994.
Roh, H. W., & Kim, H. R. (2011). Wind pressure distribution on canopies attached to tall buildings.
Journal of mechanical science and technology, 25(7), 1767-1774.