ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 93 (2005) 843855 www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia

Wind effects of parapets on low buildings: Part 2. Structural loads

Gregory A. Kopp, Christian Mans, David Surry
Alan G. Davenport Wind Engineering Group, Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada N6A 5B9 Received 14 May 2004; received in revised form 23 August 2005; accepted 26 August 2005 Available online 10 October 2005

Abstract The present paper, Part 2 in a four part series, focuses on the effects of solid, perimetric parapets on the wind-induced structural loads on low-rise buildings. Roof and wall pressures were measured at more than 500 locations simultaneously for ve parapet heights (h 0, 0.46, 0.9, 1.8 and 2.7 m in equivalent full-scale dimensions) and three building heights (H 4:6, 9.1 and 18.3 m) with plan dimensions 31.1 by 61.6 m and a 1 2 on 12 gable roof slope. The data were obtained in simulated open country and suburban terrain conditions, at a scale of 1:100, in a boundary layer wind tunnel. It was observed that the distance from the eaves edge to the reattachment point for winds normal to the wall increases from x=H 0:4 for h=H h 0 to x=H 1:8 for h=H h 0:23. While mean and uctuating point pressure distributions tend to decrease in magnitude with h, the increased areas of separated ow lead to increased loads for interior frames with the taller parapets. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Wind loads; Low-rise buildings; Building codes; Parapets

1. Introduction While the inuence of parapets on local pressure coefcients has been the topic of numerous experimental studies, the effect of parapets on structural loads has remained largely unexamined. This is likely due to the comments made by Leutheusser [1] 40 years ago, when he stated that (also quoted in [2]) the pertinent design information listed in
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 661 3338; fax: +1 519 661 3339.

E-mail address: gakopp@uwo.ca (G.A. Kopp). 0167-6105/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2005.08.005

ARTICLE IN PRESS
844 G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855

building codes for at-roofed structures without parapets applies unchanged also to these buildings when equipped with parapets. Baskaran and Stathopoulos [2,3], examining only the most basic of structural loads, made a similar conclusion, nding that parapets cause no signicant change in the overall lift and drag forces on low buildings. In contrast, we showed in Part 1 [4] of this work, that parapets do have a signicant effect of the aerodynamics of low buildings, at least over the smaller areas associated with component and cladding loads. Given this result, it is worthwhile to re-visit the effects of parapets on structural loads. Thus, the objective of the present paper is to examine the effects of parapets on the structural loads for low buildings. This paper is the second part in a four part series on the wind effects of parapets on low buildings: the reader is referred to Part 1 [4] for details on the basic aerodynamic effects of parapets on the point pressure distributions and area-averaged loads relevant to components and cladding design; to Part 3 [5] for details on the parapet loads and to Part 4 [6] for load mitigation strategies using parapets. Every effort has been made to ensure that the present paper is reasonably self-contained, but without unnecessary duplication of information. Many more details on this project can be found in [710]. 2. Experimental details Wind loads on low buildings depend on the many factors pertaining to building geometry and the upstream boundary layer characteristics. In [4], we discuss our choices for the model scales used in the project. For the present part, a scale model of 1:100 was chosen. For the boundary layer simulation, we matched our previous wind tunnel set-up of the terrain used for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) aerodynamic database for low buildings [11,12]. The open country terrain is characterized by a roughness length, zo, of 0.03 m in open country and 0.3 m for suburban terrain roughness, similar to Part 1. Only the open country terrain results are presented herein. The experiments matched the ESDU 82026 mean proles [13], ESDU 83045 turbulence intensities [14], and ESDU 740031 velocity spectra [15] for the specied target terrain roughness lengths. A detailed discussion of the ow simulation for the present part can be found in Ho et al. [11] and is not repeated here. An exploded plan view of the 1:100 model is shown in Fig. 1, which has equivalent fullscale plan dimensions of 31.1 m by 61.6 m (102 ft by 202 ft) and a 1 2 on 12 gable roof slope. The nearly at roof slope is representative of the majority of commercial and industrial low buildings used in practice and was chosen for this reason. The model was constructed for an earlier study, and has been modied for the present purposes. Pressure time series were recorded at more than 500 locations over the surface of the model, concentrated over one half of the building. The model was designed to slide through the oor of the wind tunnel, allowing three eaves heights to be examined, namely, H 4:6, 9.1 and 18.3 m (15, 30 and 60 ft). These are indicated by the dashed lines in Fig. 1. For the 4.6 m building, the pressure taps below the dashed lines do not represent taps on the building itself as these were below the tunnel oor. Note that throughout the paper, equivalent full-scale dimensions will used, assuming the length scale of 1:100. Acrylic parapet members, with a nominal thickness of 0.30 m (1.0 ft), were added around the perimeter of the model. The thickness of the parapet was chosen to be as thin as possible, yet rigid. The parapets had the same 1 2 on 12 gable shape as the building. Five parapet heights were considered, namely, h 0, 0.46, 0.9, 1.8 and 2.7 m (0, 1.5, 3.0, 6.0 and

ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855
L= 61.6 m

845

WIND

Bay 1 Bay2 W= 31.1m

Frame 1

Frame 2

Frame 3

4.6m 9.1m 18.3m

7.6m B=

Fig. 1. Pressure tap layout and denition of wind direction.

9.0 ft). The parapet heights were chosen to bound the range of possible values for these building heights. (A 2.7 m parapet on a 4.6 m building would not be common, but it may be on an 18.3 m building where h=H h 0:13.) Note also that only uniform perimetric parapets were examined; no isolated (single wall) parapets were studied in this part. Pressure measurements were made using the parameters listed in Table 1; further details can be found in [4]. In addition, the maximum blockage was less than 2%, while the Reynolds number based on roof height varied between 4.2 104 and 1.7 105. Full-scale Reynolds numbers would be larger by the length scale multiplied by the velocity scale, so the present experiments are more than two orders of magnitude low. Pressures were sampled for the 17 wind directions listed in Table 1 (and dened in Fig. 1).

3. Denitions of the structural loads Seven structural responses were calculated on an assumed main wind force resisting system for each model conguration using the time series obtained from wind tunnel testing. These responses were selected to envelope the major structural actions important

Frame 4

ARTICLE IN PRESS
846 G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855 Table 1 Details pertaining to measurement congurations and data acquisition Plan dimensions, W L Eaves height, H Roof slope Parapet heights Upstream terrain roughness, zo Wind angles (degrees) Number of taps Sampling frequency Low pass lter cut-off frequency Sampling time Reference wind tunnel speed Model scale 31.1 m 61.6 m (102 ft 202 ft) 4.6, 9.1, 18.3 m (15, 30, 60 ft) 1/2 on 12 gable roof 0, 0.46, 0.9, 1.83, 2.74 m (0, 1.5, 3, 6, 9 ft) 0.03 & 0.3 m (0.10 & 1.0 ft) 0, 15, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 75, 90, 120, 135, 150, 180, 200, 225 518 400 Hz 200 Hz 120 s 13.7 m/s (45 fps) 1:100

to designing a building with frames of uniform spacing. All loads were calculated assuming a typical frame spacing of 7.6 m (25 ft), consistent with values used in earlier analyses [e.g., 12,17]. The frame locations with respect to the pressure tap layout are shown in Fig. 1. Two area-averaged loads were calculated: bay uplift and horizontal thrust. These are global load actions, and do not depend on any assumed structural system. Frame uplift was also calculated. Four bending moments covering two major types of structural systems were calculated on each of the frames: the moments at the ridge and at the knees of a frame pinned at the base, and the moments at the knees of a frame pinned at the base and at the ridge. Only the bay uplift and the ridge bending moment for a two-pinned frame will be discussed herein in order to illustrate the major effects of parapets. The reader is referred to [7] for further results and numerous additional plots. The response coefcients were determined by integrating the pressure time series obtained at each tap location weighted by the ratio of the tributary area of the tap to the total area being considered. For example, bay uplift coefcients are obtained by P wi bi Cpi t C u t , (1) BW =2 where Cpi, wi and bi are the pressure coefcient, tributary width and tributary breadth associated with tap i, W is the building width, and B is the bay width. In this case, we use W/2 since only half of the bay (i.e., from eaves edge to ridge) is considered. All of the moment response coefcients are determined by P wi bi I Li I Mi Cpi t C M t , (2) W 2B where IMi is the moment inuence coefcient relating the local frame load (from the pressure at tap i) to the moment in question and ILi is a linearly varying inuence coefcient to account for load sharing between frames. These inuence coefcients were obtained in the same manner as earlier analyses [12,17]. The inuence coefcients vary for each particular moment and for each structural system assumed. To calculate the moment inuence coefcients on the two-pinned frames, the stiffness of the frame girders relative to the stiffness of the columns was assumed to be unity. In order to keep this stiffness ratio constant, the moment of inertia of the column cross-section was varied. The ratio of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855 847

girder moment of inertia to that of the column (i.e., Ig/Ic) was taken as the ratio of the building width to the eaves height. Further details can be found in [7]. As in the other parts, the peak pressure and area-averaged load coefcients presented in the study are not the absolute worst coefcients recorded within the sample time, but are Lieblein-tted statistical peaks. This involves dividing the recorded time series into ten equal segments and performing the Lieblein BLUE formulation [18] with the peak values taken from each of 10 segments. The resulting mode and dispersion of the type I extreme value distributions were used to determine the mean 1 2 h (full scale) peak value for each pressure and load coefcient reported herein. These are believed to be more statistically stable quantities than the actual recorded peaks.

4. Aerodynamic effects of parapets on structural loads 4.1. Bay uplift It was shown in Part 1 [4] that parapets have a signicant effect on the local (components and cladding) loads on the roofs of low buildings. This type of loading is primarily caused by the suctions induced by the corner vortices that occur for cornering wind directions. The strength of the corner vortices were shown to be strengthened by low parapets, while the extent of these vortices on the surface was expanded. For high parapets, fairly uniform pressures were observed. For many structural loads, the important directions are for wind normal to one of the walls. Here, we examine the aerodynamic effects of parapets for this wind direction. Fig. 2 shows the mean and root-mean-square (rms1; i.e., standard deviation) pressure coefcients along the line of taps at midspan for a wind direction normal to the roof (901). The reattachment point is often determined from surface pressure data as the location just beyond the peak value of the mean suction, where the rms values are maximum. One can see that for the case with no parapet, h 0, this occurs around x=H 0:4 and increases dramatically with increasing h so that for h=H h 0:091, x=H 0:8, h=H h 0:17, x=H 1:1 and h=H h 0:23, x=H 1:8. This trend was also clearly observed in ow visualizations (not shown here). The increase is not one-to-one in h or h+H so that, again, the extent of the edge vortices is signicantly expanded for larger h as were the corner vortices. For a building with H 9:1 m the distance from the edge to the reattachment point increases from roughly 4 m for h 0 to 16 m for h 2:7 m. This latter distance corresponds roughly to the ridge, which could have signicant implications for roofs with steeper slopes, but also has implications for winds parallel to the ridge where reattachment would be beyond the second bay, rather than the middle of the rst bay. Also observed in Fig. 2 is that peak values of both the mean and rms pressure coefcients decrease near the edge with increased h, with the distributions becoming more uniform for the higher parapets. Larger values in these pressure coefcients are observed at distances further from the edge, as compared to the no parapet case. One nal observation is that Cp0 increases just upstream of the leeward parapet, accounting for the upward trend at x=H 3 (see also Fig. 5).
We will use the abbreviation rms for the standard deviation of the uctuations (i.e., with the mean removed) throughout this work.
1

ARTICLE IN PRESS
848 G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855

-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 Cp -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 (a) 0.4 1.0 2.0 x /H 3.0 4.0 H=4.6m, h=0m H=9.1m, h=0 H=18m, h=0 H=9.1m, h=0.46m H=9.1m, h=0.91m H=9.1m, h=1.8m H=9.1m, h=2.7m

0.3

H=4.6m, h=0m H=9.1m, h=0 H=18m, h=0 H=9.1m, h=0.46m H=9.1m, h=0.91m H=9.1m, h=1.8m H=9.1m, h=2.7m

Cp'

0.2

0.1

0.0 0.0 (b)

1.0

2.0 x /H

3.0

4.0

Fig. 2. Distributions of the (a) mean, Cp, and (b) rms, Cp0 , pressure coefcients along the building midplane, L/2, for a wind normal to the ridge (901) in the open country exposure.

The question to be answered from these observations is whether the expanding area of suction beneath these edge vortices increases more rapidly than the corresponding decrease in the strength of the peak point suctions. This can be examined with the bay uplift (the bays are dened in Fig. 1). Fig. 3 depicts the peak bay uplift for bays 1 and 2 vs. wind angle. In these gures, the uplift coefcients (negative values are upwards, consistent with the denition of pressures) are normalized by C u;Bay1 jMINC u j, (3)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855 849

-1.25

-1

Cu,min/Cu,Bay1

-0.75

-0.5 h/(H +h)= 0 h/(H+h)=0. 048 -0.25 h/(H+h)=0. 091 h/(H +h)= 0 .1 7 h/(H +h)= 0 .2 3 0 0 30 60

(a)

90 120 wind angle ()

150

180

-1.25

-1

Cu,min/Cu,Bay2

-0.75

-0.5 h/(H +h)= 0 h/(H+h)=0.048 -0.25 h/(H+h)=0.091 h/(H+h)=0.017 h/(H +h)= 0 .2 3 0 0 30 60

(b)

90 120 wind angle ()

150

180

Fig. 3. Uplift minima for (a) bay 1 and (b) bay 2 vs. wind angle in the open country terrain for an eaves height of H 9:1 m.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
850 G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855

-0.5

-0.25

Cu,max/Cu,Bay1

0.25 h/(H +h)= 0 h/(H+h)=0. 048 0.5 h/(H+h)=0. 091 h/(H +h)= 0 .1 7 h/(H +h)= 0 .2 3 0.75 0 30 60 90 120 wind angle () 150 180

Fig. 4. Uplift maxima for bay 1 vs. wind angle in the open country terrain for an eaves height of H 9:1 m.

where MIN(Cu) is evaluated for a particular bay (i.e., for Bay 1, in this case) over all wind angles for h 0. To maintain signs, the absolute value is taken in (3). This normalization allows an easy comparison of the relative effects of the parapets particularly for opposite signed loads, such as the maxima in Fig. 4. Interested readers are referred to St. Pierre et al. [12] for a comparison of bay uplift (panel) loads, for similar building sizes, to those in current building codes and past experiments. It should also be noted that C u;Bay2 0:79C u;Bay1 . It is clear from Fig. 3 that for the 2.7 m parapet on the 9.1 m high building (h=H h 0:23), the peak loads are increased by about 25% for both bays. Also, since there are few points in either plot where the magnitude is below that of the no parapet case, one can conclude that the expanding footprint of the edge vortices dominates the diminished magnitude of the suctions. This is consistent with our observations for the local loads in Part 1. Again, it is important to note that the increased loading is dependent on h. For h=H h 0:048, there is virtually no increase; by h=H h 0:091, the increase in the worst coefcients are 14% and 9% for bays 1 and 2, respectively. There are some other interesting observations, as well. For bay 2, the inuence of the separated ow for a wind angle of 01 leads to dramatic increases in the uplift, though 901 remains the most important wind angle for this bay. For bay 1, the important wind angle changes from 01 to cornering wind directions (30401), presumably because of the diminishing size of the quiescent zone between the two corner vortices (see Fig. 6 in Part 1). The other signicant effect caused by parapets is the occurrence of downward acting loads on the roof in front of a leeward parapet. Signicant downward loading can occur over large areas, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Downward acting bay loads with a magnitude of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855 851

over 50% of the peak uplift for the building with no parapet are observed for all bays. This load increases signicantly with parapet height. As mentioned in Part 1, the pressure distributions in the separated ow zones should scale with H and be similar for constant values of h/(H+h). Fig. 5 shows that this is approximately the case for h=H h 0:091. The collapse is not perfect, perhaps due to the inuence of varying wind conditions at the different eaves heights (from H 4:6 to 18.3 m) but could also be due to effects of the plan dimensions and parapet thickness not being geometrically similar with respect to H. What this means in practice is that the
-1.0 H=4. 6m -0.8 H=9. 1m H=18m -0.6

Cp

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2 0.0 (a) 1.0 2.0 x /H 3.0 4.0

H=4.6m 0.3 H=9.1m H=18m

0.2 Cp' 0.1 0.0 0.0 (b) 1.0 2.0 x /H 3.0 4.0
Fig. 5. Distributions of the (a) mean and (b) rms pressure coefcients, for constant h=H h 0:091, along the building midplane for a wind normal to the ridge (901) in the open country exposure.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
852 G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855

aerodynamic loads should be normalized by (H+h), as should the parapet heights. (The exceptions to this are for the downward acting loads due to the large positive pressures that occur on the roof near the windward side of a leeward parapet and the wall pressures, as shown in Part 3 [5]. In the former case, the load coefcients are well scaled by h. This is because the ow is reattached on the roof and the pressures around the leeward parapet behave like those for a wall on the ground. In other words, H is less relevant in this case.) 4.2. Ridge bending moment Fig. 6 depicts minima and maxima of the ridge bending moment for a two-pinned frame for frames 1 and 2. These values are normalized by the minimum value of CM for the same frame, but with h 0, considering all wind angles, just as was done for the bay uplift. Thus, for frame 1, the normalizing value is C M;Frame1 jMINC M j. (4)

-1.2 -1 CM,min/CM,Frame1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0 (a) 30 60 90 120 150 180 (b) wind angle () -0.4 -0.2 CM,max/CM,Frame2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (c) 0
h/(H+h)=0 h/(H+h)=0.048 h/(H+h)=0.091 h/(H+h)=0.17 h/(H=h)=0.23

-1.2 -1 CM,min/CM,Frame2 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0 30

h/(H+h)=0 h/(H+h)=0.048 h/(H+h)=0.091 h/(H+h)=0.17 h/(H=h)=0.23

60 90 120 wind angle ()

150

180

h/(H+h)=0 h/(H+h)=0.048 h/(H+h)=0.091 h/(H+h)=0.17 h/(H=h)=0.23

30

60 90 120 wind angle ()

150

180

Fig. 6. (a) Minimum ridge bending moment for frame 1 and (b) minimum and (c) maximum ridge bending moments for frame 2 on the building with H 9:1 m vs. wind angle in the open country exposure.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855 853

To maintain signs, the absolute value is taken in (4). Note that the frame 2 minimum is only 65% of that for frame 1, i.e., C M;Frame2 0:65C M;Frame1 . Interestingly, the effects of parapets on frame 1 are quite different compared to those for frame 2; for frame 1 the parapets are seen to reduce the value of the worst moment, while for frame 2 the worst moments are increased. This is typical of many of the structural loads, which depend on the details of the pressure distribution (including frame uplift). The increasing length to the reattachment point alters the distributions of the loading, as shown above. For the ridge bending moment, the increase is not severe, only about 10% for h=H h 0:17 and 5% for h=H h 0:091; however, for other responses, the effects can be greater [7]. Parapets have a second signicant effect on the ridge bending moment, shown in Fig. 6(c) (and on other moments not shown here), that is, on the positive moments. When there is no parapet in place the largest maxima is relatively small, less than 20% of the magnitude of CM,Frame2. However, the signicant downward loading induced by the leeward parapets for normal winds acts to increase CM,max to signicant magnitudes, in this case, for example, to 50% of CM,min for h=H h 0:17. Therefore, these downward acting pressures affect not only the vertical loading, as indicated in [4], but also the structural moments. Many current wind load standards do not account for this type of loading, which is clearly exacerbated by the presence of parapets. 4.3. Discussion In [12], St. Pierre et al. compared the existing wind load provisions for large, gableroofed buildings with recent and historical experimental data [11,17], similar to those obtained here, but for h 0. They made several observations but found that, in general, the different standards signicantly underestimated the loads on the end frames. Better matches were found for interior frames, primarily because the wind tunnel loads drop in magnitude while the code loads remain nearly constant. Parapets tend to increase the loading proportionally more for interior frames, compared to end frames, due to the increased distance from the eaves edge to the reattachment point. So, two approaches to altering the wind load provisions could be made to account for the effects of parapets. On the one hand, one could increase the pressure coefcients, e.g., GCp, to account for the underestimation on the end frames. This would bring an increase for the interior frames which would effectively envelope the effects of parapets (as shown in [7]) while being conservative for h 0. On the other hand, one could develop a set of coefcients, which would depend on h/(H+h). For h/(H+h) in the range up to 0.17, the effects on structural loads responding to suctions on the roof are minimal and could possibly be neglected. However, the downward acting pressures, which have affects on every frame for winds approximately normal to the walls, should be considered. 5. Conclusions The results of a systematic study on the effects of parapets on structural loads for low buildings indicate that parapets are not benign, as earlier concluded by Leutheusser [1]. The distance from the ow separation at the eaves edge to the rst reattachment point on the roof for normal winds increases signicantly with h/(H+h), being roughly 0.4H for h=H h 0 and increases to 1.8H for h=H h 0:23. This leads to an increased load

ARTICLE IN PRESS
854 G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855

of about 10% on interior frames for h=H hp0:09, with a greater increase for higher parapets. Bay uplift is increased on end bays by similar amounts, while structural loads such as bending moments or frame uplift are not affected signicantly. Downward acting loads near leeward parapets have a signicant effect on moments, leading to considerable magnitudes of opposite sign compared to the normal roof suctions; the ASCE 7 does not currently account for such loading. Acknowledgements This work was made possible through the nancial support of the Metal Building Manufacturers Association and the American Iron and Steel Institute. The on-going interest of Dr. Lee Shoemaker is greatly appreciated. The authors wish to thank Dr. Eric Ho for many useful conversations and his help with the data handling. G.A. Kopp gratefully acknowledges the support of the Canada Research Chairs Program. References
[1] H.J. Leutheusser, Parapets improve roof wind loading, The Consulting Engr. (1964) 9496. [2] T. Stathopoulos, A. Baskaran, Turbulent wind loading on roofs with parapet congurations, Can. J. Civil Eng. 29 (1988) 570578. [3] A. Baskaran, T. Stathopoulos, Roof corner wind loads and parapet congurations, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 29 (1988) 7988. [4] G.A. Kopp, D. Surry, C. Mans, Wind effects of parapets on low buildings: Part 1. Basic aerodynamic effects and local loads, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. (2004) submitted for publication, doi:10.1016/ j.jweia.2005.08.006. [5] C. Mans, G.A. Kopp, D. Surry, Wind effects of parapets on low buildings: Part 3. Parapet loads, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. (2004) submitted for publication, doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2005.08.007. [6] G.A. Kopp, C. Mans, D. Surry, Wind effects of parapets on low buildings: Part 4. Mitigation of corner loads with alternative geometries, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. (2004) submitted for publication, doi:10.1016/ j.jweia.2005.08.004. [7] C. Mans, G.A. Kopp, D. Surry, Wind loads on parapets, Part I: the effects of parapets on structural loads, Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Report BLWT-SS23-2000, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 2000. [8] C. Mans, G.A. Kopp, D. Surry, Wind loads on parapets, Part II: structural and local cladding loading on the parapet itself, Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Report BLWT-SS37-2001, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 2001. [9] C. Mans, G.A. Kopp, D. Surry, Wind loads on parapets, Part III: the effect of parapets on local wind loading, Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Report BLWT-SS38-2001, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 2001. [10] G.A. Kopp, D. Surry, Wind loads on parapets: Part IV. The effects of isolated and alternative parapet geometries on local loads, Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Report BLWT-SS15-2004, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 2004. [11] T.C.E. Ho, D. Surry, D. Morrish, G.A. Kopp, The UWO contribution to the NIST aerodynamic database for wind loads on low buildings: Part 1. Archiving format and basic aerodynamic data, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 130. [12] L.St. Pierre, G.A. Kopp, D. Surry, T.C.E. Ho, The UWO contribution to the NIST aerodynamic database for wind loads on low buildings: Part 2. Comparison of data with wind load provisions for low buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 3159. [13] Engineering Data Science Unit, Strong winds in the atmosphere boundary layer. Part 1: mean-hourly wind speeds, Data Item 82026, 1982. [14] Engineering Data Science Unit, Strong winds in the atmosphere boundary layer. Part 2: discrete gust speeds, Data Item 83045, 1983.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.A. Kopp et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005) 843855 855 [15] Engineering Science Data Unit, Characteristics of atmospheric turbulence near the ground, Data Item 74031, 1974. [17] T. Stathopoulos, Turbulent wind action on low-rise buildings, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, 1979. [18] J. Lieblein, Efcient methods of extreme value methodology, National Bureau of Standards Report No. NBSIR 74-602, Washington, DC, 1974.