WindLoadCalibrationStudy - Ireland

Department of the
Environment
Irish National Annex
to I.S. EN1991-1-4
Wind Load Calibration
Study
Department of the
Environment
Irish National Annex
to I.S. EN1991-1-4
Wind Load Calibration
Study
December 2009
This report takes into account the

particular instructions and requirements
of our client.
It is not intended for and should not be
relied upon by any third party and no
Arup Consulting Engineers responsibility is undertaken to any third
50 Ringsend Road party
Dublin, 4
Tel +353 1 23344554
www.arup.com Job number D4712
Department of the Environment Irish National Annex to I.S. EN1991-1-4
Wind Load Calibration Study
Contents
Page
Executive Summary i
1 Introduction 1
2 Possibilities for Developing the National Annex 1
2.1 EN with Minimal Changes 1
2.2 Irish National Annex based on UK NA 2
2.3 Calibration Studies 2
3 Modifications Introduced in the NA 3
3.1 Principles Used in Drafting the NA 3
3.2 Matters of National Choice 3
3.3 Terrain Categories 3
3.4 Altitude Factor 4
3.5 Model for Peak Velocity Pressure 4
3.6 Size Factor (cs) and Dynamic Factor (cd) 5
3.7 Net Pressure Coefficients for Overall Loads 5
3.8 Informative Annexes B and C & D 6
3.9 Informative Annex E 6
3.10 Additional Loading Coefficients 6
3.11 Torsional Loads 6
3.12 Diagonal Load Combination Factors 6
3.13 Additional Information 7
4 Irish Wind Map 8
5 Calibration Studies 10
5.1 General 10
5.2 Loading Assessment 10
6 Comment Arising From The Most Recent Calibrations Appendix A 16
6.1 Map Wind Speeds 16
6.2 Calculated Wind Pressure Profiles 16
6.3 Effect of Internal Pressures 16
6.4 Wall Pressures 17
6.5 Overall Force Coefficients 18
7 Usability Trials (2006) 20
8 Conclusions and Recommendations 22
8.1 Conclusions 22
8.2 Recommendations 22
Bibliography 23
J:\D4700-D4799\D4712\2) DOCUMENTS\100\REPORTS\WIND REPORT_ISSUE 2_D Arup Consulting Engineers

4712-100.DOC Issue 2 16 December 2009
Appendices
Appendix A
2009 Calibration Studies
Appendix B
Original Calibration Studies (2006)
Appendix C
Usability Feedback (2006)
J:\D4700-D4799\D4712\2) DOCUMENTS\100\REPORTS\WIND REPORT_ISSUE 2_D Arup Consulting Engineers

4712-100.DOC Issue 2 16 December 2009
Executive Summary
Arup Consulting Engineers have been appointed by the Department of the Environment to
undertake a study of the use of I.S.EN1991-1-4: Actions on Structures Part 1-4: General Actions
Section 4 Wind Actions (the EN) and to produce an appropriate Irish National Annex (the NA) to
enable use of the code in Ireland.
A key part of the study is the production of a wind map consistent with the EN and proposed
National Annex.
It was an aim of the Wind NA Committee to use the recommended EN method / values as far as
possible. As such changes have been made only where current knowledge and experience
indicates that safety and / or economy may be compromised by sticking to the EN method and to
ensure that the code provides information in a form that is as readily usable by practitioners as
possible.
The report describes the considerations leading to choice of Nationally Determined Parameters and
the derivation of supplementary information. The need to refer to Non-Contradictory Complementary
Information (NCCI), where it is desired to provide guidance in areas which are not well covered in
the EN, is also identified.
The main economic impact in Ireland of the proposed changes is likely to be on buildings and hence
the studies have concentrated on these Calibration studies and user trials have been carried out by
Arup for six different kinds of building chosen to be representative of common building types in
Ireland. The conclusions of these studies are also reported here.
Overall the aim of the Irish and UK code committees to maintain the safety and economy of current
practice, within practical constraints has been achieved by the proposed NA. It is inevitable that the
complexity of the Eurocode process and discoveries made in process will lead to various
improvements and omissions as reported, together with some differences to the reported loads.
In common with many Eurocodes, to use EN 1991-1-4, it is necessary also to be aware of the
information provided in its National Annex and also of available Non-Contradictory Complementary
Information. This more complex set of documents will create a need for better training in the use of
the new code and the need for new design guides, which are planned but not yet published. There
will a settling in period which is likely to last rather beyond April 2010.
It is also inevitable, given the constraints of writing the EN and NA, that issues will be found and in
the short term it is recommended that reference to BS6399-2 is made to help resolve these, in
parallel with reporting these back to the EN committee via NSAI.
J:\D4700-D4799\D4712\2) DOCUMENTS\100\REPORTS\WIND Page i Arup Consulting Engineers

REPORT_ISSUE 2_D 4712-100.DOC Issue 2 16 December 2009
1 Introduction
Arup Consulting Engineers have been appointed by the Department of the Environment to
undertake a study of the use of I.S.EN1991-1-4: Actions on Structures Part 1-4: General
Actions Wind Actions (the EN) and the necessary work to produce an appropriate Irish
National Annex (the NA) to enable use of the code in Ireland. This work has been carried
out in association with the wind engineering team of Ove Arup and Partners in London.
To achieve this goal, the report describes the considerations leading to choice of Nationally
Determined Parameters and the derivation of supplementary information, such as wind
maps and wind direction factors relevant to the geography of Ireland. The need to refer to
Non-Contradictory Complementary Information (NCCI), where it is desired to provide
guidance in areas which are not well covered in the EN, is also identified.
A key part of the study is the production of a wind map consistent with the EN and proposed
National Annex. Dr NJ Cook, who is responsible for similar work in the UK, has been
appointed by Arup to assist with the calibration and check the statistical procedures used in
the analysis of wind data obtained from the Irish Meteorological Office to ensure consistency
with the design methods in the proposed EN/NA.
Calibration studies and user trials have been carried out by Arup for a number of different
kinds of building and the conclusions of these studies are also reported here. It should be
noted that the EN documents are intended to cover wind loads on all structures exposed to
the wind (with a number of current exclusions of specialist forms of structure). However, the
main economic impact in Ireland of the proposed changes is likely to be on buildings and
hence the studies have concentrated on these.
The report also includes the input information and main results of the buildings considered
in the calibration studies.
2 Possibilities for Developing the National Annex

Two practical approaches have been considered:
a) Use the EN with minimal changes.
b) Use of an Irish National Annex based on the UK NA.
It should be noted that in both cases a new wind map is required.
It should be noted that the flexibility of national choice allowed in the EN has been
necessary to accommodate a wide range of technical opinions across Europe. The NA
represents one version of a significant number of allowed departures from the basic EN
methods, depending particularly on the history of local expertise and experience in the
different countries.
2.1 EN with Minimal Changes
Use of the EN with minimal changes might be considered to lead to the minimum amount of
code development effort and to assist future convergence of the Eurocodes but has several
significant disadvantages for the building and property industries.
Existing practice in Ireland has been to use UK codes of practice for wind loading, most
recently BS 6399-2 and previously CP3: Ch V: Pt.2. However, calibration studies carried
out in the UK showed that basic EN methods represent a significant departure from current
Irish practice which would, in a majority of cases, result in significantly different wind loads
from those calculated at present. This is due mainly to simplifications in the basic EN
methods, which may be significantly conservative or non-conservative depending on
structure and location.
C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 1 Arup Consulting Engineers
Issue 2 16 December 2009
This has implications for safety and economy of building, and for reuse of existing
structures, a significant sustainability issue.
The simplifications of the basic EN also make it difficult to derive an appropriate wind map,
in particular due to the omission of a methodology for gradual corrections due to varying
fetches of ground roughness of different types.
2.2 Irish National Annex based on UK NA
By contrast, the alternative use of an Irish NA based on the UK NA has a number of

advantages.
a) The loads obtained and the methods of deriving them are similar to current Irish
practice.
b) Expertise used in derivation of the proposed wind maps is available to assist,
ensuring no discontinuities across local borders.
c) The NA will contain data covering a wider range of building shapes and data for other
structures than is contained in the basic EN - similar to that in BS 6399-2.
d) The costs and time to develop an appropriate NA are reduced by sharing knowledge
and expertise in this way.
e) Cross border trade between the UK and Ireland in building products and construction
will be assisted.
2.3 Calibration Studies
Initial calibration studies and usability trial were carried out using both the basic EN methods
and using an earlier version of the NA, together with BS 6399-2. The preliminary results of
this study are found in Appendix A with a description of the findings given in Section 5.2.3 of
this report. The recommendation at this point was to base the NA for Ireland on the UK NA.
The most recent calibration studies have concentrated on differences between current
practice using BS 6399-2 and the current proposed NA. This incorporates the new wind
speed map of Ireland. The results are described in Section 5.2.4 with more detailed
technical data given in Appendix A.

3 Modifications Introduced in the NA

3.1 Principles Used in Drafting the NA
It was an aim of the wind NA committee to use the recommended EN methods/values as far
as possible. As such changes have been made only where current knowledge and
experience indicate that safety and/or economy may be compromised by sticking to the EN
methods, and to ensure that the code provides information in a form that is as readily usable
by practitioners as possible.
Under the CEN rules of drafting the National Annexes, it is possible to substitute rules
where national choice is allowed. But it is not permitted either to reproduce in part sections
of the basic EN or to provide a substitute for the EN. The intention of this is that any
National Annex should always be read in conjunction with the relevant EN.
Clearly this results in a less usable document as two (or three see reference to Non
Contradictory Complementary Information below) documents must now be referenced
instead of one, but this is unfortunately unavoidable if CEN rules are to be followed. We
anticipate that design guides similar to those for BS 6399-2 and other modern standards will
be produced and will be widely used following introduction of the EN, which will help to
overcome this usability issue.
Additional information, currently contained in British Standards including BS 6399-2, is
published in the form of Non-Contradictory Complementary Information in UK PD 6688-1-4
(NCCI), which is also referenced in the NA.
3.2 Matters of National Choice
The EN permits sixty-six Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs) allowing variation in

particular clauses. For forty-eight of these, the NA uses the recommended values. It
deviates from the recommended values for eighteen NDPs.
There are also effectively ten Informative Annexes (counting the five sub-annexes of Annex
A as separate annexes). Some of these present alternative methods requiring National
Choice. Of these, six Annexes are accepted as they are and one (Annex E) is reproduced
in an augmented form as Appendix A to the UK PD 6688-1-4 to cover aerodynamic design
of bridges. Three are rejected.
3.3 Terrain Categories
The EN contains five categories of exposure ranging from Sea to City Centre combined with
a methodology which results in very significant jumps in design wind pressure between the
categories, whereas a smooth variation is physically more realistic. As choice of category
can be subjective, this can lead to significant jumps in loading based on subjectivity.
In the NA, as in BS6399-2, this is overcome by using a variation between exposures based
on fetch, following the methodology of Harris and Deaves (2). To assist in this, the NA has
also grouped some of the exposure categories and uses only three of them (NA.2.11)
described as Sea/Lake, Country, and Town/Urban. These categories are easily identified
from standard maps used in Ireland and the UK. This approach helps prevent the misuse of
the code (also common with CP3) and the gradual transition between categories of
exposure helps to promote both safety and economy.
The NA provides look-up charts to derive peak velocity pressure for sites in country and
town terrains, in an effort to save time but also to avoid mistakes. Tabular data is also
available electronically (currently from the IStructE web-site) to enable ready
computerisation of values from the charts. The latter was used in the calibration studies to
ensure consistency of comparisons.
The factors used to derive reference pressures using the NA / EN are intended to be closely
similar in effect to those in BS 6399-2.
However, some differences due to using the updated wind model do arise. The changes
are generally small and are discussed in Section 5.2.4.8 and Section 6.
3.4 Altitude Factor
The use of an altitude factor is permitted in the EN but no guidance is provided. The altitude
factor in the NA is similar to that in BS 6399-2 but has been modified to reduce its effect on
tall structures on relatively small hills. This modification is based on detailed numerical
modelling of flow over several hills, and is intended mainly to avoid over-conservatism in
design of communications masts and towers (NA.2.5).
3.5 Model for Peak Velocity Pressure
The EN gives a simplified linearised formula neglecting the important "squared-term" in the
relationship between wind velocity and wind pressure. This is inconsistent with the
derivation of the "Cp,10" pressure coefficients (originally from the UK BRE) which are
contained in the EN, and calibrations have shown that this will underestimate the design
pressures. The NA therefore has adopted the current practice which involves a squaring of
the windspeed to obtain pressures (NA.2.17).
The graph below shows how this simplification in the EN can lead to unconservative design.
Especially in case of higher values of turbulence intensity (Iv) occuring in towns and for
lower structures.
Figure 1 Gust Pressure Factor Comparison
It should be noted that the introduction of the "Cp,1" values of the EN was a necessary, but
approximate, fix to restore some conservatism to the calculation of local pressures for
buildings in urban environments that resulted from the linearised formula used, as noted
above.
As a result of reverting to the current (BS 6399-2) practice for pressures the use of the "Cp,1"
values is however unnecessary using the NA method and would be significantly
conservative in more exposed terrain. Cp,1 values are currently not NDP values and the
NA therefore suggests applying them only for areas smaller than 1 m2.

3.6 Size Factor (cs) and Dynamic Factor (cd)
The EN provides a simple expression for the product cs.cd covering some particular kinds of
building but suggests a conservative minimum value of 1.0 in certain cases. Separate
expressions are also provided for each parameter but this involves the use of more complex
procedures in the Informative Annexes.
The NA provides a table for cs and figures for cd for structures with four levels of damping.
The values are based on EN procedures but the presentation makes their use more
convenient and less prone to error.
The size factor (cs) is given in more detail in the tables than was practical in the standard
method of BS 6399-2, which in principle ought to lead to less conservatism. However, the
size factors of the EN are more conservative for large areas than those in BS 6399-2, and
conservative compared to measurements on static wind tunnel models. They can be
slightly non-conservative for small areas.
For overall forces on larger buildings, this over conservatism is compensated by a dynamic
factor which can be significantly less than the equivalent (1+Cr) factor from BS 6399-2. In
some cases the calculated EN dynamic factor may be less than one.
These differences are a consequence of use of a constant peak factor in the size factor
calculation and a varying one in dynamic calculation, combined with neglect of the v-
squared term in the size factor calculation. The rather complex equations are not given
here but are contained in Appendices C and F of BS6399-2 and EN1991-1-4 Annex B.
The combined EN cs.cd factors often turn out to be reasonable, compared to the equivalent
Ca.(1+Cr) factor from BS 6399-2.
Clearly there is more calibration work to do here in the future, but the differences should not
be important for the great majority of buildings where these constitute only a small
correction to the loading.
3.7 Net Pressure Coefficients for Overall Loads
Net pressure coefficients for overall loads on structures of rectangular form are provided in
addition to external coefficients for each wall. This is similar to BS 6399-2 but the values
have been simplified by neglecting the variation with plan ratio (b/d).
The net pressure coefficient table in BS 6399-2 is difficult to interpret since the coefficients
vary with plan ratio as well as height ratio. In the EN this has been simplified so that the
coefficient is dependent only on height over the plan dimension in the direction of the wind,
h/b. A comparison of the coefficients including the effect of the correlation reduction factor
is given in the calibration section.
Methods for irregular shaped buildings are provided in the EN but tend to be more
conservative than using the net pressure coefficients values where these are available. The
advised use of worst case front and rear pressure coefficients, which may be derived from
different wind directions within a range of 45, will result in conservatism. By contrast, the
net pressure coefficients values were obtained by combining peak windward and leeward
pressure coefficients, which were not measured simultaneously, but were for the same wind
direction. In the NA, it is therefore still permitted to use the lack of correlation factor of I.S.
EN.7.2.2 (3) with the net pressure coefficients.
In the EN the lack of correlation factor of typically 0.85 increases to 1.0 for slender
structures of h/b ratio of 5 in the EN.
This change is required to restore necessary conservatism for more slender structures,
when the variation of front face pressure with height is used.

Modern simultaneous pressure measurement techniques, were not available to the UK

Building research establishment 20 years or more ago, when most of the current pressure
coefficients were derived, using, at the time, state-of-theart methods.
The BRE dataset remains however the most comprehensive and systematically acquired
pressure dataset in existence for low-rise buildings, despite its known limitations.
3.8 Informative Annexes B and C & D
Annexes B and C cover the same scope (i.e. procedure for determining the structural factor
cs.cd). Adoption of either annex is a national choice. The NA chooses Annex B for adoption
since it uses established methodology. In addition the results of limited calibrations in the
UK showed that they were closer to those of Annex B than C. Annex D provides values of
cs.cd for typical structures. The EN allows separation of cs.cd at national level. The NA
implements this separation as described in section 3.6 and as such Annex D will not be
required.
3.9 Informative Annex E
This deals with vortex shedding and aeroelastic instabilities. The material in the standard is
mainly acceptable for building structures but needs augmenting for bridges.
As it is technically not allowed to add additional material within a National Annex, an
extended version has been produced, which is published in the Annex A of the UK PD
6688-1-4 (NCCI). This is included in the NA as supplementary information.
3.10 Additional Loading Coefficients
The NA contains up-to-date Figures for vaulted roofs (Figures NA.11 and NA.12). The NA
refers to UK PD 6688-1-4 (NCCI) for additional coefficients covering more complex building
shapes with flat roofs, monopitch roofs, duopitch roofs, hipped roofs, etc, as in BS 6399-2
but not included in the EN. Coefficients for effects of funnelling are given in NA.2.27.
It is also proposed to include the directional pressure coefficients in UK PD6688-1-4 to help
avoid the potential over conservatism of the basic code coefficients in critical cases - as in
the directional method of BS 6399-2. (The coefficients of the EN are generally only
provided for wind directions onto the face of rectangular structures and are intended to
include all effects occurring for wind directions within 45 of the building face similar to the
standard method of BS 6399-2).
3.11 Torsional Loads
Torsional / unbalanced loading is implemented differently in the EN from BS 6399-2, using a

linearly varying pressure distribution rather than the various methods of BS6399-
2. However, the EN figure 7.1 results in induce torsional loads which are much less than
given in BS6399-2, DIN1056, and from many wind tunnel studies. Accordingly figure 7.1 is
replaced by figure NA.10 where the pressure distribution has been amended to produce a
torque corresponding to a 10% offset of loading but with a reduced total lateral load, again
similar to observations from wind tunnel testing. In general the 10% offset is not a constant
but increases with width/depth, but suitable parametric studies have never been carried out
to calibrate a more advanced model.
3.12 Diagonal Load Combination Factors
The need to consider combinations of forces in a diagonal direction for design of certain
elements of structure, particularly corner columns, was omitted from the EN but has been
mentioned in the NA, rather than more properly relying on NCCI (the UK PD) because
clearly it may be a strength issue for many building types, rather than additional information
for certain building types. This is implemented in the same way as in BS 6399-2.

3.13 Additional Information
It is expected that detailed issues will arise in the use of the new EN, as for any other new
code. Methods of centralising feedback on this (and other codes) are clearly desirable.

4 Irish Wind Map

This has been derived from analysis of long-term (50 years or more in some cases) mean
and gust windspeeds and directions from a number of sites across Ireland with assistance
from Met. Eireann.
Any wind measurement site is affected by local surroundings. Where possible, corrections
were made using methods consistent with the wind model of the NA, which is based on the
Harris and Deaues (2) wind model. In particular the implementation of the Harris and
Deaues wind model as described in the ESDU Wind Engineering Data item (1) was used to
correct windspeeds for variations of roughness of the ground. For some critical sites, further
corrections to speed and direction were made to account for topography using a numerical
model based on the method of Jackson and Hunt (5). Reliable corrections were not
possible on all sites for all directions due to some local obstructions such as buildings and
cliffs. (It can be very difficult to find good sites for anemometers in hilly areas).
Data required to carry out the work above is extensive and not all stored in one place. In
particular it was found to be necessary to identify and establish changes in recording
practices and instrumentation over time, together with other possible causes of changes to
the data including urban development. Such factors inevitably affect data from long-term
sites, which were not necessarily planned with current requirements in mind.
Once the main inconsistencies above were isolated, it was relatively straightforward to
assess the natural statistical variability of the measured windspeeds using the methods of
Cook and Harris (eg 4) in discussion with NJ Cook. In particular the windspeeds were
analysed, direction by direction and compared with the UK wind direction factors derived by
NJ Cook for the UK wind codes. The map speeds were derived taking account of how
windspeeds from any direction fit this model.
This work showed that the UK direction factors would also work be acceptable for use in
Ireland and the resulting map windspeeds were consistent with, and improved the fit across
the UK, compared with the map in the current UK NA. This is likely to be updated.
Vb,site is the 10-minute-mean speed of 0.02 annual risk of exceedance, corrected to 10m
height above standard open country and for 0m altitude. This definition is consistent with
BS 6399-2, except that the 10-minute-mean speeds are taken to be 1.06 of the corrected
hourly-mean speeds recorded by the meteorological services in Ireland and the UK.

Figure 2: Combined Wind Map of UK and Ireland (The NA map shows Ireland only)

5 Calibration Studies
5.1 General
In 1995 the BSI in the UK published BS 6399-2, which was subsequently updated in the
1997 version, which is current. CP3: Chapter V: Part 2 (Wind Loads), which preceded
BS 6399-2, was officially withdrawn in the UK in October of 2001.
Comparisons with the wind loads of CP3: Chapter V: Part 2 have been made extensively in
the UK since about 1990, including early calibration studies by Arup. Comparisons between
CP3 and BS 6399 made by NJ Cook are also discussed in detail in Wind Loading a
practical guide to BS 6399-2, 1999, Thomas Telford.
Those who read the Verulam section of The Structural Engineer will know that the
introduction of BS 6399-2 has exposed significant misinterpretation in the use of CP3, in
contradiction of the code and available explanatory BRE Digests. This has made some of
the comparisons controversial in some eyes. However, the extensive additional guidance in
BS 6399-2 for a wider range of building shapes and the elimination of most step-changes in
the loading calculation made the code far more usable in Arups experience.
In view of this and the existing body of comparisons, we have not carried out any further
user trials using CP3 or comparisons with CP3. The comparisons that we have carried out
as part of this report are with BS 6399-2 (1997) solely.
5.2 Loading Assessment
Loading on the structure and cladding was assessed for six buildings as described in
section 5.2.2. The location, site and form of these buildings were chosen to cover as many
design scenarios as possible, i.e. to be representative of building types most commonly
designed in Ireland.
Wind pressure calculations were carried out by a team led by Fiona Purcell (Chartered
Engineer) of Arup Consulting Engineers Ireland, assisted by the Ove Arup and Partners
wind team in London, led by Andrew Allsop, Chartered Engineer, member of the UK wind
loading committee and Fellow of the UK Wind Engineering Society.
5.2.1 Methodology
Building locations, form and site were chosen and documented (see section 5.2.2 below).
The Steering Group gave their approval of these in principle on the 21 October 2005 at the
initial project meeting, and further comments were issued at a meeting on the 9 March 2006,
following a presentation of the proposed methodology.
Initial calibration studies (in the absence of an updated Irish wind map), comparing the
procedures of the basic EN and UK NA, indicated significant differences between the EN
and current practice on the back of the findings of the first round of calibration studies.
Following protracted discussion of the UK NA Committee, additional alterations to the Irish
(and UK) NA were suggested and incorporated on the back of the findings of the first round
of calibration studies. (Refer to Section 3 for current detail).
Following approval of the Irish map windspeeds, a further set of calibration calculations was
therefore carried out in September/October 2009, as discussed in section 5.2.4.

5.2.2 Building Forms Used for Calibration

The buildings and design elements that were chosen for calibration are as follows:
Building Form Building Specific Design Elements

Location
High Rise Cork o Funnelling
o Tall Building
Large Agricultural Barn Waterford o Cladding Loading
o Open-sided Buildings
o Curved Roof
Industrial Flat Roof Unit Dublin City o Cladding Loads
o Dominant Openings
o Town Exposure
Industrial Flat Roof Unit Dublin Co. o Cladding Loads
o Dominant Openings
o Country Exposure
Apartment Limerick o Significant Topography
o Funnelling
o Balconies
Residential Galway Town o Town Exposure
High Density Office Dublin City o Inset Storeys
o Cladding Loads
o Canopies
o Sea Exposure
Detailed drawings outlining location, form and shape are included in Appendix B.
5.2.3 Preliminary Calibration Results (2006)

A detailed loading analysis was carried out for each building. This covered overall loads,
wall loads and roof loads and looked at effects of various specific features (as described
above) of each building. The results were presented in the Draft 1 report, issued in May
2006.
The preliminary comparative design calculations were initially carried out using the EN in
isolation and comparing these results with those from BS 6399-2. This reflected the
committees objective to maintain the EN in its entirety as much as possible.
However, as presented at our progress meeting on the 9 March, there were several areas
where problems occurred by sticking rigidly to the basic EN. Significant irregularities existed
that either over- or under-estimated the likely wind loads. The main areas of concern in this
regard were the lack of adjustment given to:
1. Seasonal Factor, Cseason
2. Directional Factor, Cdir
3. No Altitude Factor included
4. Exposure Factor, Ce(z)
5. Funnelling
There were also surprising differences in the pressure coefficients - surprising because the
technical base document for EN pressure coefficients was provided by the UK Building
Research Establishment (BRE) and was the same as used in deriving the BS6399-2
pressure coefficients. Further explanation is given in Section 3 of this report.
For completeness, some of the preliminary results (extracted from the Draft 1 Report of May
2006) are presented in Appendix B. It should be noted that these results were based on the
use of the EN with a draft version of the UK NA. This differs from the final UK NA as a result
of changes made following the UK calibration studies, particularly to the recommendations
on pressure coefficients. The Appendix B results have a larger deviation from the BS-6399-
2 results than those in Appendix A.

5.2.4 Final Calibration Results (2009)

Following publication of the UK National Annex to the EN in September 2008, and the
finalisation of the Irish Wind Map in September 2009, the calibration studies were revisited.
For each building, overall wind loads, wall loads and roof loads were calculated. This has
resulted in a large quantity of comparative data for BS 6399-2 and the NA / EN. In order to
create a meaningful comparative exercise, it was decided to compare wind pressures for
each element, in lieu of actual forces, as this would enable us to negate any differences due
to different zone shapes, see Appendix A for tables and diagrams of results.
In cases where there were a number of wind pressures for various heights of the building,
e.g. the High Rise Office Block in Cork, we choose to compare the maximum value of wind
pressure in each case only due to the otherwise potentially overwhelming volume of data.
This is also generally the major design criterion, so the most useful value to compare.
Similarly, for side elevations of buildings only maximum pressure was included in our
summary of results. In some cases this will include the increases due to funnelling effects.
For roof loading, the codes generally only provide a single peak negative (outward = uplift)
pressure. However in some cases, a positive pressure coefficient is also given. Both of
these may be combined with a range of internal pressures but the maxima are only valid
(and most likely to be critical for design) in cases where a positive pressure coefficient is
provided by the code. As the maximum (downward) roof loads are rarely critical for design
compared to other load cases (such as with snow) they are not presented in the summaries
below.
A summary of worst pressures for walls and roof is tabled in Appendix A for both BS 6399-2
and EN (with the NA).
Overall loads on buildings including the lack of correlation of wind pressures between the
windward and leeward sides are also presented.
A graphical comparison of the worst results is also included in Appendix A. The results are
generally for wind from four different directions, as in the EN and the Standard method of
BS6399-2.
5.2.4.1 Presentation of Results

The following is a detailed description of a typical set of results to assist in the interpretation
of the date given in Appendix A are described. Results for the High Rise Building in Cork as
presented on pages A7 to A10 of Appendix A. In general the results are calculated based
on both the BS 6399-2:1997 and EN 1991-1-4:2005 along with the NA Draft 4.11. For each
code, two sets of results are calculated. The first set is calculated assuming zero internal
pressure while the second is calculated assuming the existence of internal pressure. The
no internal pressure case is considered to show the difference in the external pressures
calculated by the two codes. Results with internal pressure are used to show the
significant difference resulting from the different treatment of internal pressure in the two
codes as explained in Section 6.3.

A summary of results is shown in

tabular form in Page A7 (extract
given to the right). The three
columns of results are for the BS,
the EN, and the ratio of EN/BS
expressed as a percentage. The
Nett pressure on the walls is
presented first for all the four
wind directions. Two general
cases for wall pressures are
considered as explained earlier.
The first case is with internal
pressure while the other is
without internal pressure. To
simplify the comparison, only
worst (positive or negative)
pressures are shown.
Similarly, two sets of (absolute)
roof pressures are presented
following the wall results.
More results are shown

graphically on pages A8, for the
walls, and A9, for the roof.
The first two histograms on page
A8 (extract given to the right)
show the wall maximum
pressures obtained from both the
BS and EN in the four wind
directions.
The first histogram shows the
results for the with internal
pressure case while the second
is for the without internal
pressure case. The last
histogram shows the worst case
in pressure zones for all
directions (with internal
pressure) for all the wall
pressure zones.
Similar results for the roof are
shown in page A9.

All the pressures presented so far

are cladding pressures on the
different pressure zones.
The overall structural horizontal
wind load, expressed as building
base shear, and the resulting
building base bending moment
are shown graphically in page
A10. The results cover all the four
wind directions and are
calculated based on both the BS
and EN.
Similar sets of results are
presented for all the buildings
studied in this report.
5.2.4.2 Summary of Final Calibration Results
High Rise Building-Cork

The worst pressure ratio on walls, at pressure zone A, calculated as the ratio of pressure
from EN 1991-1-4:2005 to the pressure from BS 6399-2:1997 (expressed from here on as
EN/BS %) for the case with internal pressure is 109%. The ratio for the case with zero
internal pressure is 93%. Similar ratios for the roof at pressure zone A are 111% and 101%
respectively. These results indicate that when the effect of internal pressure is removed, the
maximum wall pressure calculated from the EN is slightly less than that obtained from the
BS. For the roof under the same conditions, results are nearly the same from both codes.
However, if the difference in internal pressure, calculated based on both codes, is included
a pressure increase of up to 9% in the walls and 11% in the roof will result.
Results for the overall horizontal load and resulting bending moment on the building show
an increase of between 5 and 6% of the EN results compared with the BS results.
Agricultural Barn-Waterford
The worst pressure ratio on walls, at pressure zone A, EN/BS % is 96%. Similar ratios for
the roof at pressure zone A is 98%. These results reflect the effect of the change in the Map
Wind Speed as will be discussed in 6.1.
Industrial Flat Roof Unit-Dublin Country and Town
For the building in Dublin Country, the worst pressure ratio EN/BS % on walls at pressure
zone A for the case with internal ratio is 116%. The ratio for the case without internal
pressure is 100%. Similar ratios for the roof at pressure zone A are 119% and 108%
respectively. The effect of the nearly 2% increase in the Map Wind Speed in Dublin is
reflected in these high results. The results also indicate the effect of differences in internal
pressure calculated based on both codes. Results for the overall horizontal load and
resulting bending moment on the building show an increase of 11% of the EN results
compared with the BS results.

Similar results for the Dublin City building show a smaller ratio EN/BS % for walls of 107%
and 92% for the cases of with internal pressure and without internal pressure
respectively. Similar ratios for the roof at pressure zone A are 110% and 100% respectively.
Results for the overall horizontal load and resulting bending moment on the building show
an increase of 6% of the EN results compared with the BS results.
Apartment Block-Limerick
The worst pressure ratio EN/BS % on walls at pressure zone A for the case with internal
ratio is 114%. The ratio for the case without internal pressure is 102%. Similar ratios for the
roof at pressure zone A are 112% and 102% respectively. The results also indicate the
effect of internal pressure calculated based on both codes. Results for the walls are
affected by funnelling. Results for the overall horizontal load and resulting bending moment
on the building show a decrease of 2% of the EN results compared with the BS results.
Residential Duo-Pitch Roof House-Galway
roof at pressure zone A are 106% and 93% respectively. The results indicate again the
effect of internal pressure and funnelling on the final pressures.
Office Block-Dublin
roof at pressure zone A are 118% and 107% respectively. The effect of the nearly 2%
increase in the Map Wind Speed in Dublin is reflected again in these results. The effect of
funnelling is also shown. Overall horizontal load and resulting bending moment on the
building are nearly identical.

6 Comment Arising From The Most Recent Calibrations

Appendix A
6.1 Map Wind Speeds
Map windspeeds of the NA (divided by 1.06) were compared with those from BS6399-2 for
each of the 7 sites. These were in generally extremely close agreement in all the sites
except those near Dublin, where there was a slight increase of around 2% and in Waterford
where there was a reduction of just under 2%. These changes (and others not reported
here) are due to the more comprehensive studies carried out as part of this study for Ireland
compared to that done in order to produce the map in BS 6399-2 previously.
6.2 Calculated Wind Pressure Profiles
A comparison of pressures calculated using the software tables (as used to derive the NA
figures) and similar software using BS 6399-2 tables was made for a range of heights over
each of the 7 sites and for 12 wind directions.
Overall there was a slight reduction in design pressures, especially for lower structures but
this varies between sites. A full comparison summary is given in Table 1 below.
Table Statistical Variation of Reference Wind Pressures EN v. BS6399-2
Ratio of Reference Pressures, EN/BS, due to wind model for 7 sites x 12 wind directions
z (m) Min Av Max Stdev

3 0.87 0.93 0.99 0.027
4 0.87 0.94 1.05 0.033
5 0.87 0.94 1.05 0.032
7 0.87 0.94 1.03 0.029
9 0.87 0.95 1.03 0.031
12 0.87 0.96 1.03 0.031
15 0.87 0.96 1.03 0.030
20 0.88 0.96 1.03 0.032
25 0.88 0.97 1.02 0.029
30 0.90 0.98 1.02 0.027
40 0.93 0.99 1.04 0.020
50 0.94 0.99 1.04 0.015
70 0.95 1.00 1.03 0.009
90 0.96 1.00 1.03 0.006
120 0.97 0.99 1.02 0.004
150 0.96 0.99 1.02 0.006
200 0.95 0.98 1.03 0.010
These are believed to be reasonable. Similar results were found in the UK calibrations (11).
6.3 Effect of Internal Pressures
Increases in the cladding pressures reported are mainly due to use of different nominal
internal pressure coefficients and due to the lack of an internal pressure size factor in the
EN methodology. This is balanced by a slight reduction in the magnitude of the peak
external suction pressures.
In the absence of any detailed calculation of internal pressure, the EN suggests using an
internal pressure range of +0.2 to -0.3 on the top-of-building peak reference pressure, with
no size reduction factors. This is the same as in CP3:Ch.V: Part 2. BS6399-2 by contrast
suggests only -0.3 times a size reduction factor which for a large enclosed building may be
of the order of 0.66.

Generally, it is found that in use, this is one area in particular where there is some
uncertainty in what value of internal pressures should be used and most engineers would
have selected a range of pressures, even with BS6399-2. The current BS calibration
calculations use +0.0 as well as the -0.3xCa.
Section EN 7.2.9 (6) provides an alternative method of determining internal pressures based
on an assumption of varying leakage from surfaces. This gives a single value for a given
geometry relative to the wind although this may vary for different wind directions. A typical
range of cpi for a variety of shapes using this method (EN figure 7.13) with a uniform surface
leakage would be about 0 to -0.4 rather than +0.2 to -0.3. Variations of this kind reflect
some real uncertainty but in any case a site factor is an obvious omission.
There are no NDPs in this section of the EN, so there is no opportunity to introduce anything
in the NA. There is also no further information in the current UK PD. Use of the EN +0.2
and -0.3 as the range of cpi as described in Note 2 of EN 2.7.9 (6) is generally considered
safe and probably what most engineers will use for normal building designs, as assumed in
the calibration study.
This is an area where additional guidance could usefully be provided. However, as
discussed above, there is no formally allowed method of introducing this into the NA. (It is
possible that something may be introduced in the UK PD but it is not in the current issue).
6.4 Wall Pressures
Wall pressures in the EN are applied to zones defined in a closely similar way to BS6399-2.
However, some wall pressures have adjusted marginally in the EN by a process of different
rounding, generally in the last significant digit, producing changes of the order of 10%. The
most important changes are:
a) Reduction in magnitude of Zone A cpe,10 values to -1.2 (from -1.3 in the BS).
b) Marginal changes to front and rear wall pressures, making them more even with h/d on
the front face and more variable on the less critical rear face.
c) Omission of funnelling values. Funnelling values are now provided in the NA.
The changes in b) would increase overall loads calculated by adding the front and rear
pressure coefficients by up to 10% on buildings with h/d greater than about 2 and would
reduce them for lower buildings by up to 10%. This is not critical if the less conservative net
pressure coefficients are used for design. See below.
Although the front face pressure increases by 15% for h/d of 0.25, for such buildings the
side face pressures will normally govern cladding design, so this is normally immaterial. For
taller buildings the reduction from +0.85 to +0.8 may result in some marginal saving on
cladding pressures in some cases.
The reductions of about 7% in the most critical cpe,10 values above partially compensate for
the conservatism in the internal pressure calculations in the EN, see above.
These values may be varied by national choice but, to date, these have not been changed
in the NA.

6.5 Overall Force Coefficients
Figure 3 below illustrates the differences between the suggested net pressure coefficients
of BS 6399-2 and of the NA.
Generally the procedure for calculation net pressure coefficients has been simplified in the
Eurocode by ignoring the potential effect of plan ratio on the loads and rounding down the
loads at the reported values of height over depth (the dimension in the wind direction). As
can be seen from the results for the high-rise building in Cork, the NA increases the net
cpe,10 values for more slender buildings. It should be noted that slender buildings were not
necessarily well covered by the BS.
Interpolation between the reported values is in both cases suggested as linear. This also
introduces significant differences for intermediate values since in the BS the main
interpolation is linear with depth over height, rather than height over depth as in the NA.
This also makes the NA values relatively non-conservative, as also shown in Figure 3.
This could be overcome either by using a logarithmic interpolation as shown in Figure 4, or
by providing additional reported values as in table 2 below. It is recommended here that the
table is changed in the NA.
Table Proposed extension of Table NA.4
h/d Net pressure coefficient c pe,10

5.0 1.30
2.3 1.20
1.0 1.10
0.66 1.00
0.42 0.90
0.25 0.80
The reductions in load for less slender buildings can be as great as 20%. The reductions in
loading described above are however partly compensated by the need to consider torsional
effect as in figure NA.10. The required 30% increase on pressures on the ends of long
blocks will often compensate in terms of provided strength.
The increase in loading for more slender building will affect few buildings and buildings of
such slender form may well be wind tunnel tested. The increase is however generally
reasonable and compensates for the potential benefit gained by using calculation of
pressures by parts, using the rules for positive pressures (method to be clarified in the NA).

Figure 3 Comparison of Overall Force Coefficients using the NA and BS6399-2

Linear-Interpolation
C p net BS v. EN "Linear Interpolation"

1.5
b/d = 0.5
b/d = 0.6
b/d = 0.9
b/d = 1.1
1.0
b/d = 1.4
C p net
b/d = 1.7
b/d = 2.1
b/d = 2.1
0.5 b/d = 2.6
b/d = 3.2
b/d = 4.0
EN all b/d
0.0
0.1 1 10
h/d
Figure 4 Comparison of Overall Force Coefficients using the NA and BS6399-2
Log-Interpolation
C p net BS v. EN "Log Interpolation"

1.5
b/d = 0.5
b/d = 0.6
b/d = 0.8
b/d = 0.9
1.0
b/d = 1.1
b/d = 1.4
C p net
b/d = 1.7
b/d = 2.1
b/d = 2.6
0.5
b/d = 3.2
b/d = 4.0
EN all
b/d
0.0
0.1 1 10
h/d

7 Usability Trials (2006)

Currently there is a range of software to aid the use of BS 6399-2. Clearly this takes time to
develop for use with the EN so hand calculations and semi-automated methods were used
for the initial trials. Software has recently been developed by Arup based on the published
electronic tables of wind parameters (published on the IStructE web-site) to aid usability of
the new standard. For the purpose of the Usability Trials, hand calculations only were used.
However, Arup were able to compile a good impression of the usability aspects of the EN
and NA. In addition seven other engineers of varying levels of experience carried out
calculations using the EN and NA.
In summary, the overall impression of the Engineers who took part in the trials was that the
EN was not too difficult to use. However, once the calculations carried out were checked, it
was found that misinterpretation of procedures seemed to be common, but as noted in
Section 5.1, this is not a new phenomenon.
The questionnaire used is attached in Appendix C. The questionnaire aimed to grade the
following factors and to highlight any problems discovered when using the codes.
Nomenclature.
Layout.
Scope of Code.
Usability.
Explanation of Methods.
There were also some key areas where little or no guidance was given in the EN, these
included:
Exposure Factor.
Directional and Seasonal Effects.
Altitude Effects.
Frictional Factors.
Inset Storeys.
Balconies.
Turbulence.
Size Factors.
Funnelling (not covered in any detail in the EN, with Specialist advice being the
answer to all problems in this regard, which was not deemed as practicable).
Since the usability trials took place, the elements highlighted above have been taken on
board in the NA in an effort to provide guidance for particular areas that are not adequately
covered by the EN.
The areas that were found to give particular difficulty during the usability trials were:
Cross referencing with the National Annex was difficult and cumbersome. (User guide
desirable). Following the introduction now a third document to be referenced (the UK
PD) this will be exacerbated.
The lack of a flow chart was deemed a disadvantage. (Now provided, see current NA
Annex A). Once the code has been in use for sometime, it would be advisable to
review the flow charts to ensure minimal confusion between documents.
Clarification of the Terrain categories in terms of diagrams was suggested, this has
now been incorporated in the NA.

Determination of cr(z), etc., was confusing with cross referencing difficult with the
National Annex. (Software desirable and relatively easy to write).
The relevant height to use with NA 4, 7 and 8 is unclear and can result in errors, in
particular in relation to inset storeys, displacement heights and buildings that are
divided into parts. (EN is similar to BS 6399-2. User guide needed).
Very little explanation is given in the EN or NA in terms of background to the code. As
a result if, the building form being examined falls outside the scope of the code there
is no guidance as to procedures to be followed. (This is a common problem with
complex code formats but is necessary to avoid it becoming a text book. User guide
needed.) References in the NA to be as complete as possible to assist in this.

8 Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1 Conclusions
Generally it has been an aim of the Irish and UK code committees to maintain the safety
and economy of current practice, within practical constraints. It is inevitable that the
complexity of the EN process and discoveries made in process will lead to various
improvements and omissions as reported above, together with some differences to the
reported loads. However generally it is felt that the main aims have been met with the
proposed NA.
The EN is intended to cover a wider range of structures than BS 6399-2, which was largely
confined to buildings. Much of the added material is most relevant to bridges.
8.2 Recommendations
8.2.1 Roof Local Pressure

While the wind tunnel generated local pressure coefficient data for buildings underlying the
EN were the same as used in BS 6399-2, the pre-EN committee chose to simplify it in
alternative ways to those used for BS 6399-2, in many cases, eg for walls, with probably
acceptable results. The difficulty of doing this in a way acceptable for codification should
not be underestimated. However, in cases of roofs, significant differences in local pressures
have arisen, which were only picked up in the recent UK and Irish calibration studies. It is
therefore currently recommended in the NA that the BS 6399-2 coefficients should be used
until such time as these can be resolved. Currently there is a proposal to allow all external
pressure coefficients to be Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs), which would enable
these alternative coefficients to be published in the NA. It is recommended that the Irish
code committee should make this change.
8.2.2 Directional Local Pressure Coefficients

For simplification, it was also decided by the EN committee not to include full-directional
local pressure coefficients in the EN, and also to omit some of the detailed rules found in
BS 6399-2. It is intended by the UK committee to publish most of the omitted material in the
UK PD 6688-1-4, which is to be referenced as Non-Contradictory Complementary
Information (NCCI) in the I.S. NA to EN1991-1.4.
8.2.3 Overall Force Coefficients

Following this calibration study, an extension to the Table NA.4 is recommended in section
6.5 above to ease interpolation and to avoid some lack of conservatism, when interpolating
between the values provided in the original table. This will also be proposed to the UK wind
code committee.
8.2.4 Non-Contradictory Complementary Information

In common with many Eurocodes, to use EN 1991-1-4, it is necessary also to be aware of
the information provided in its National Annex and also in available Non-Contradictory
Complementary Information. This more complex set of documents will create a need for
better training in the use of the new code and the need for new design guides, which
however are not yet published. There will a settling in period which is likely to last rather
beyond April 2010. How this is best disseminated to the engineering community is an
important aspect for the committee to consider.
8.2.5 Further Anomalies

As the code is introduced, it is also inevitable that various issues will be found that have not
been picked up in this study due to the limited number of building shapes and locations
examined. Therefore, in the short term, it is recommended that reference to BS6399-2 is
made to resolve these, in parallel with reporting the anomalies back to the Eurocode
committees. The wind code committee should consider mechanisms for collating such
reports.
Bibliography
1. ESDU Wind Engineering Series, IHI, dated various.
2. Deaves, DM, and Harris, RI. A mathematical model of the structure of strong winds,
CIRIA, 1978.
3. Cook, N.J. Wind Loading, a practical guide to BS 6399-2 Wind Loads on Buildings,
Thomas Telford Publishing, 1999.
4. Cook, NJ. Towards better estimation of wind speeds. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 9: 295-323, 1982, and subsequent papers.
5. Jackson, PS and Hunt, JCR. Turbulent wind flow over a low hill. Quart.J. R. Met. Soc.,
101, 1975.
6. I.S. EN 1991-1-4: 2005, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions -
Wind Actions, NSAI.
7. NA to I.S. EN 1991-1-4, Irish National Annex to Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures -
Part 1-4: General actions - Wind actions, NSAI, 2009.
8. UK NA to EN 1991-1-4, UK National Annex to Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures - Part
1-4: General actions - Wind actions, BSI, 2009.
9. UK PD 6688-1.4, Background information to the National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-4
and additional guidance, BSI, 2009.
10. BS 6399-2: 1997 Loading for buildings - Part 2: Code of practice for wind loads, BSI,
corrected and reprinted June 2002.
11. Calibration of Eurocode for wind loading (BS EN 1991-1-4) and its UK National Annex
against the current UK wind code (BS 6399: Part2), Department for Communities and
Local Government CI 71/11/3 (BD2619), 13th December 2007. Available from BSI
web-site.
12. Irish National Annex to the Wind Eurocode (EN 1991-1-4) Derivation of the Wind Map,
Department of the Environment Heritage and local Government issued October 2009.

Appendix A
2009 Calibration
Studies
A1 CORK
C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page A1 Arup Consulting Engineers

High Rise Building Cork:

Altitude: 3.400m.O.D. *= Distance to Sea


Altitude: 3.400m.O.D.
Note: Cpe = BS value (EN value)
Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from NORTH


Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from EAST


Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from SOUTH


Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from WEST





A2 WATERFORD

AGRICULTURAL BARN 3 SIDES OPEN WATERFORD:



Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from NORTH


Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from EAST


Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from SOUTH


Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from WEST





A3 DUBLIN CITY / COUNTY:

INDUSTRIAL FLAT ROOF UNIT DUBLIN CITY / COUNTY:


INDUSTRIAL UNIT DUBLIN CITY / COUNTY:

Note: Cpe=BS value (EN value)
Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from NORTH-EAST


Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from SOUTH-EAST


Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from SOUTH-WEST


Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from NORTH-WEST









A4 LIMERICK

APARTMENT BLOCK LIMERICK:





Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from SOUTH-WEST


Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from NORTH-WEST





A5 GALWAY

RESIDENTIAL DUO PITCHES ROOF HOUSE GALWAY:



Altitude: 0.0m.O.D.


Altitude: 0.0m.O.D.
Pressure Coefficients Wind Action from SOUTH WEST





A6 DUBLIN

OFFICE BLOCK DUBLIN:



Altitude: 5.0m.O.D.
PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS WIND ACTION FROM NORTH-EAST


Altitude: 5.0m.O.D.
PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS WIND ACTION FROM SOUTH-EAST


Altitude: 5.0m.O.D.
PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS WIND ACTION FROM SOUTH-WEST


Altitude: 5.0m.O.D.
PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS WIND ACTION FROM NORTH-WEST





Appendix C
Usability Feedback
(2006)

WindLoadCalibrationStudy - Ireland

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WindLoadCalibrationStudy - Ireland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of the

This report takes into account the

J:\D4700-D4799\D4712\2) DOCUMENTS\100\REPORTS\WIND REPORT_ISSUE 2_D Arup Consulting Engineers

J:\D4700-D4799\D4712\2) DOCUMENTS\100\REPORTS\WIND REPORT_ISSUE 2_D Arup Consulting Engineers

J:\D4700-D4799\D4712\2) DOCUMENTS\100\REPORTS\WIND Page i Arup Consulting Engineers

2 Possibilities for Developing the National Annex

2.1 EN with Minimal Changes

2.2 Irish National Annex based on UK NA

By contrast, the alternative use of an Irish NA based on the UK NA has a number of

2.3 Calibration Studies

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 2 Arup Consulting Engineers

3 Modifications Introduced in the NA

3.2 Matters of National Choice

The EN permits sixty-six Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs) allowing variation in

3.3 Terrain Categories

3.4 Altitude Factor

3.5 Model for Peak Velocity Pressure

Figure 1 Gust Pressure Factor Comparison

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 4 Arup Consulting Engineers

3.6 Size Factor (cs) and Dynamic Factor (cd)

3.7 Net Pressure Coefficients for Overall Loads

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 5 Arup Consulting Engineers

Modern simultaneous pressure measurement techniques, were not available to the UK

3.8 Informative Annexes B and C & D

3.9 Informative Annex E

3.10 Additional Loading Coefficients

3.11 Torsional Loads

Torsional / unbalanced loading is implemented differently in the EN from BS 6399-2, using a

3.12 Diagonal Load Combination Factors

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 6 Arup Consulting Engineers

3.13 Additional Information

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 7 Arup Consulting Engineers

4 Irish Wind Map

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 8 Arup Consulting Engineers

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 9 Arup Consulting Engineers

5.2 Loading Assessment

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 10 Arup Consulting Engineers

5.2.2 Building Forms Used for Calibration

Building Form Building Specific Design Elements

5.2.3 Preliminary Calibration Results (2006)

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 11 Arup Consulting Engineers

5.2.4 Final Calibration Results (2009)

5.2.4.1 Presentation of Results

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 12 Arup Consulting Engineers

A summary of results is shown in

More results are shown

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 13 Arup Consulting Engineers

All the pressures presented so far

5.2.4.2 Summary of Final Calibration Results

High Rise Building-Cork

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 14 Arup Consulting Engineers

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 15 Arup Consulting Engineers

6 Comment Arising From The Most Recent Calibrations

6.2 Calculated Wind Pressure Profiles

z (m) Min Av Max Stdev

6.3 Effect of Internal Pressures

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 16 Arup Consulting Engineers

6.4 Wall Pressures

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 17 Arup Consulting Engineers

6.5 Overall Force Coefficients

h/d Net pressure coefficient c pe,10

C:\...\MY DOCUMENTS\IRISHWINDNACALIBRATION_ISSUE_091116.DOC Page 18 Arup Consulting Engineers

Figure 3 Comparison of Overall Force Coefficients using the NA and BS6399-2

C p net BS v. EN "Linear Interpolation"