50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”

Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

RECOGNIZING WHEN WIND TUNNEL TESTING IS NECESSARY:

BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR BUILDINGS
Mark P. Chatten1
ABSTRACT: Recent economic and demographic trends in the Philippines, combined with the
creative potential architects of equipped with new design tools of BIM and 3D CAD, is
unleashing a wave of new buildings that have increasingly bold and tall architectural forms. As
expectations of architects and clients shift it is necessary for the structural engineer working on
such projects in the Philippines to keep pace and ensure the performance, safety and economy
of the building’s structural and façade system. This paper examines the wind engineering
phenomena of relevance to such situationsand outlines practical guidelines in accordance with
NCSP 2010/ASCE 7-05 that can be referenced by practicing structural engineersto identify
when boundary later wind tunnel testing is recommended.

KEYWORDS: Wind Engineering, Wind Tunnel Studies, Cladding Wind Loads, Structural Wind-
Induced Responses, NCSP 2010/ASCE 7-05

1. INTRODUCTION
Recent economic and demographic trends in the Philippines, combined with the creative
potential architects of equipped with the new design tools of BIM and 3D CAD, is unleashing a
wave of new buildings that have increasingly bold and tall architectural forms. Only a decade
ago slender tall towers or mid-rise buildings with architectural features such as an openings
through the building, complex curved facades and skybridges would have been considered
unusual; now such designs arebecoming the norm. As expectations of architects and clients shift
it is necessary for the structural engineer working on the project to keep pace and ensure the
performance, safety and economy of the building’s structural and façade system. This is a
challenge as many of the world’s building codes, lag behind the rapid advancements of
architectural design and do not contain the necessary guidance to address the technical
challenges associated such buildings. Fortunately in the Philippines, unlike some of its SE Asian
neighbors, has a prudent policy of updating its national building code on a regular basis derived
from updates ofone of the most advanced building codes worldwide, the American Building
Code (ASCE 7).
The 6th and latest edition of the national code, “National Structural Code of the Philippines:
Volume 1 (Buildings, Towers, and Other Vertical Structures) – 6th Edition”, or NCSP 2010, is
primarily derived from the ASCE 7-05 with modifications that include: wind zoning and design
wind speeds provided in tabular format appropriate for the Philippines, application of “rigid” and
“flexible” structure classification to buildings only, and provision of a different set of gust effect
factor formulations for “other” non-building structures as well as guidelines for estimation of
natural frequencies and damping ratios (Pacheco et al, 2010). This paper explores the wind
engineering phenomena of relevanceto structures that are not covered by Analytical Method for
determining design wind loads in NCSP 2010 207.5 and provides practical guidelines that can be
referenced by practicing structural engineers to identify when state-of-the-art boundary layer
wind tunnel testing in accordance with NCSP 2010 207.6 Section 6.6 is required. The guidelines
provided in this paper expand on the commentary provided in the ASCE 7-05 by referencing and
explainingmore definitive guidance in the recently released ASCE 7-10.
1
Mark P. Chatten, MICE, C.Eng., PE is a Project Director with RWDI in their Shanghai Office.
RWDI’s headquarters arelocated at: 650 Woodlawn Road West, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Tel: +1.519.823.1311, Fax: +1.519.823.1316 www.rwdi.com
Mark.Chatten@rwdi.com; http://cn.linkedin.com/in/markpchatten

156
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

2. ANALYTICAL WIND LOAD METHODOLOGY IN NCSP 2010/ASCE 7-05

In the interests of simplicity and ensuring public safety the minimum wind loads provided in
most building codes are general and, typically, conservative in nature. They are derived from
academic research based on full-scale measurements and wind tunnel studiesof a range of
building shapes that were common in the 1960’sand 1970’s tested in the absence of adjacent
structures. Over time the more advanced building codes, including the NCSP/ASCE 7, have been
continuously upgraded based on additionalwind tunnel data, full scale measurements and other
informationsources including analytical methods, computational fluid dynamics and damage
survey data.
While these simple “box-like”shapes are still prevalent amongst the majority of buildings under
design in the Philippines today, there are a significant number of buildingplanned for in complex
surroundings (e.g. central business districts with multiple skyscrapers) or signature buildings
with bold architecture designs. The structural engineer may be tempted to design such buildings
in accordance with the provisions of the minimum wind loads provided by the analytical method
provided in the building code(NCSP 2010 Section 207.5), however this may in certain
circumstances unconservative (unsafe).
3. GUIDELINES WHEN TO DO A WIND TUNNEL TEST
Like most codes and standards, the NCSP 2010includes wording that recognizes the limitations
ofanalytical derived design wind loads and provide guidance when more advanced studies are
required. NCSP 2010 Section 207.5.1 adopts ASCE 7-05 Section 6.5.1 which identifies that the
analytical method can only be used when:
1. The building or other structure is a regular-shaped buildings or structure as
defined in Section 6.2 [a building or other structure having no unusual geometric
irregularity in spatial form].
2. The building or other structure does not have response characteristics making it
subject to acrosswind loading, vortex shedding, instability due to flutter or
galloping; or does not have a site location for which channeling effects or buffeting
in the wake of upwind obstructions warrant special consideration.
NCSP 2010 Section 207.5.2further clarifies the limitations of the analytical method:
The provisions of Section 207.5 [the analytical method] take into consideration the load
magnification effect caused by gusts in resonance with along-wind vibrations of flexible
buildings or other structures. Buildings or other structures not meeting the requirements
of Section 207.5.1, or having unusual shapes or response characteristics shall be
designed using recognized literature documenting such wind load effects or use the wind
tunnel procedure specified in Section 207.6.
However such wording is often misunderstood and the definitionsconsidered vague, leading
often to incompletely informed clients and sometimes structural engineers to believe that a
building that is subject to unusual wind effects or is dynamically-sensitive can be safely designed
using the analytical code approach, or that wind tunnel testing is merely an “option” that may be
eliminated due to reduce the design budgetary. Such an understanding is unsound and will likely
lead to false economy. One is therefore recommended to consider the language and meaning of
the commentary provided in the ASCE7-05 (the original source of NSCP 2010) and, the most
recent ASCE 7-10,for guidance.
The wording provided in the commentary of the ASCE 7-05 can relied upon to define situations
and shapes of buildings where more advanced study or investigations is necessary. This

157
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

commentary has been further clarified in the ASCE 7-10 Section C26.1, which provides more
definitive identification of buildings or other structures that may be subject to wind-induced
dynamic effects not accounted for by the analytical method. Such wording makes it very clear to
the engineer, client and government checking authorities that buildings that fall outside the
limitations of the analytical wind load methodology cannot be designed using this approach as it
may result in unconservative (unsafe) wind loads. Consistent with the guidelines provided in the
ASCE 7-05, the following are types of structures and situations that generallyrequire either
advanced engineering study or wind tunnel studies by a qualified wind engineering consultant.
3.1 Channeling and Wake Effects
Wind tunnel studies are recommended for buildings whose site location makes them subject to
channeling effects caused by topographical features (e.g. mountain gorge) or buildings (e.g.
neighboring tall buildings such as commonly found in a central business district) (ASCE 7-10
C26.1). In such situations the wind velocityfrom certain wind directions will be locally
accelerated as the flow is squeezed between the upwind obstructions causing increased wind
loading on the nearby structures.
Wind tunnel studies are also recommended for situations when wake buffeting may exist due to
significant upwind obstructions such as hills or significant upwind buildings (ASCE 7-10
C26.1). The “wake” is an aerodynamic term that describes a turbulent fluid region on the
downstream side of a body, where strong eddies are generated which may impose critical
fluctuating wind loads on structures downstream – especially if the frequency content of
turbulence excites the resonant frequency of the downstream structure. This “wake buffeting”
can be very important for slender towers and other dynamically sensitive structures where
overall structural wind loads can be increased dramatically.

Figure 1: Situation where channeling will occur from Figure 2: Situation where wake buffeting occurred on
certain wind directions. building C from upwind building D.

Figure 3 illustrates a typical example where a tower (B) causes a significant increase in overall
structural loads on tower (D). In similar situations relying on the design wind loads provided by
the analytical method would result in an unsafe structural design.
B a s e S w a y M o m e n t, M x o n T o w e r C ( N - m )

B a s e T o rs io n a l M o m e n t o n T o w e r C ( N -m )

2E+08 6E+07

1E+08 4E+07

5E+07 2E+07

0E+00
0E+00
-5E+07
-2E+07
-1E+08
-4E+07
-2E+08
-6E+07
-2E+08
-8E+07
-3E+08
10 60 110 160 210 260 310 360
10 60 110 160 210 260 310 360 Wind Direction (degrees)
Wind Direction (degrees)
Without Upstream Tower B With Upstream Tower B
Without Up stream Tower B With Upstream Tower B

158
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

Figure 3: Example of Wake Buffeting shown in Figure 2; base overturning moment and torsional moment on
Building D – with and without influence of upwind Building D.

This is a potentially serious situation that first came to the widespread attention of the structural
engineering community in 1965, when three of the eight cooling towers at the Ferrybridge Power
Station in the UK collapsed during a strong wind event. One of the contributing design errors
that lead to the collapse was the wind loading had been based on experiments using a single
isolated tower and did not account for the “wake buffeting” on the downwind towers that
collapsed (Armitt, 1980).
3.2. Unusual or Irregular Geometric Shape
Wind tunnel studies are recommended for buildings with unusual or irregular geometric shapes
(in plan or vertical cross-section), which differs significantly from the “box-like” shapes
illustrated in the analytical method of the NSCP 2010. Unusual or irregular geometric shapes
include buildings with multiple setbacks, curved facades, or irregular plans resulting from
significant indentations or projections, openings through a building, or multi-tower buildings
connected by bridges (ASCE 7-10 C26.1).Examples of such buildings testing in RWDI’s wind
tunnels are illustrated below.
Examples of Unusual or Irregular Geometric Shapes

Figure 4a: Garden’s on the Bay, Figure 4b: Marion County Library, Figure 4c: Atlantis Palm Island,
Singapore Indianapolis Dubai

For buildings with unusual or irregular geometry, wind loading is most accurately determined
through wind tunnel testing which may be used in lieu of the analytical code method.For
buildings with unusual or irregular geometry it is common that localized "aerodynamic hot
spots" are identified by wind tunnel testing which may exceed analytical code predictions. If not
identified, such a hotspot will mean the building will be constructed with an inherent localized
weakness that may only be revealed years later when there is a typhoon event occursleading to a
small localized breach of the building envelope. This is especially concerning as a small
localized breachof the building envelope can often cause a progressive/domino type failure of
large areas of the façade as the interior wind pressures will increase as the inside the building
becomes exposed to exterior wind pressures, leading to increased net wind pressures on adjacent
façade panels.

159
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

Pneg

Breach! wind
Pint
Pint = Ppos
Ppos

Figure 5: Localized breach in Envelope increases net Figure 6: Windstorm Damage to Building Façade
wind pressure on adjacent facade

Figure 5 illustrates the mechanism that can lead to progressive/domino type failure if there is a
breach in the envelope. Figure 6 shows an example of a building that has suffered façade damage
during a hurricane. As these hotspots tend to be small compared to the overall area of the
building’s facade, the cost to locally reinforce the hotspot is typically more than offset by savings
identified by the wind tunnel elsewhere. Kumah (2006) provides a comparison for representative
example buildings between cladding design wind loads based on wind tunnel testing with those
derived from various building code analytical methods. These examples illustrate that the
analytical code method typically grossly overstates the cladding design wind loads, but there are
frequently circumstances where localized hotspots exist caused by unusual geometry.
Also for geometrically unique structures (e.g. long span airport terminals, convention centers and
stadiums, structures with linked bridges, signature buildings complex or curved shapes) wind
tunnel testing provides overall structural wind loads that enables more refined, cost effective and
safe design of the building’s main-wind-force-resisting-system.
3.3 Dynamically Sensitive Buildings
In addition to buildings subject to unusual wind effects due to their shape and/or situation,
another class of buildings that require wind tunnel studies is high rise buildings or other slender
structures where dynamic effects are important. These dynamic wind effects are not accounted
forby the analytical method in the NCSP 2010.

Flexible buildings with response characteristics that result in substantial vortex-induced and/or
torsional dynamic effects, or dynamic effects resulting from aeroelastic instabilities such as
flutter or galloping cannot be safely design using the analytical code method to estimate wind
loads. These dynamic effects are complex and difficult to predict using simple criteria being
dependent on many factors, but should be considered probable for a building when any one or
more of the following apply (ASCE 7-10 C26.1):
i. The height of the building is over 120m.
ii. The height of the building is greater than 4 times its minimum effective width Bmin
iii. The lowest natural frequency of the building is less than 0.25 Hz [i.e. 4 second natural
period]
0.6 1 >5 where is the mean roof height of a building or height of other
is the mean hourly height at height 0.6h and as defined above.
v. [Slender structures or sub-structures potentially prone to aeroelastic effects, refer to wind
engineering consultant for evaluation]

160
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

These criteria reflect the reality that as buildings grow taller and more slender, wind loading
effects become more significant. For example a doubling of building height wind-induced
overturning moments will approximately increase by a factor of 8, whereas a doubling of
building height is unlikely to increase the elastic seismic base moment by more than a factor of
2.4 (Wilford et al. 2008). Furthermore in regions where seismic loads may govern the base
overturning moments dictating the pile design and strength of the lower levels of the building’s
main-wind-force-resisting-system, the lateral strength of the main lateral force resisting system
on the upper floors, the structure’s torsion strength and serviceability considerations such as drift
and building motions often are governed by wind effects.
In addition to wake buffeting, described above, the following wind engineering phenomena are
of particular relevance to flexible building types:
3.3.1 Across-wind Response
A commonly held misconceptionis that the only wind loads of importance are “drag” or “along-
wind” loading, which acts in the direction of the wind.However for tall flexible buildings there is
another type of wind loading of importance called “across-wind” loading, which acts
perpendicular to the direction of the wind. Across-wind loading is caused by two
mechanism’s,“buffeting” of the building by turbulence and “vortex shedding” - the latter being
the most significant for tall flexible buildings. As illustrated in Figure 7, vortex shedding is a
phenomenon where individual vortices break away alternatelyfrom the building sides in a regular
pattern imposing oscillatory forces on the structure. Although the suction force imposed by each
individual vortex is not so great, when the frequency of shedding approaches the resonant
frequency of the building significant dynamic motion and inertial forces result perpendicular to
the direction of the wind.

Direction of
Flow

Figure 7: Vortex Shedding, plan view of fluid interacting with a rectangular line type structure.

Due to resonant effectsacross-wind response often exceeds the along-wind response for tall
flexible buildings. However the analytical methodology provided in the NCSP 2010 Section
207.5 and does not account for across-wind response. The commentary of the ASCE 7-05 C6.5.8
provides reference to an interactive database that provides estimates of across-wind loading
suitable for preliminary design only. This is because there is considerable uncertainty associated
with relying on analytical methods to predict across-wind response, as it is a complex
phenomenon which is dependent on many factors including the building’s geometric shape, its
dynamic structural properties, its inherent damping and the influence of neighboring buildings.
An approach that is well suited to providing reliable estimates of across-wind response that can

161
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

account for all of these factors is wind tunnel testing usingrigid aerodynamic models using either
the high-frequency-force-balance (HFFB) or high-frequency-pressure-integration (HFPI)
technique. With advances in data acquisition technology and computing powerwind tunnel
testing using these techniques has become cost effective and routine part of the structural design
process of high rise buildings.
While across-wind loading due to vortex shedding is a complex aerodynamic phenomenon some
simple modifications to the building shape can greatly reduce the magnitude of the response.
These include softening the building corners, adding balconies to the building corners, tapering
of the building with height, changes in cross section and creating openings where the air can
bleed through. All of these modifications tend to disrupt the coherence of the vortex shedding
along the height of the structure and thus reducing the demands on the structure’s lateral force
resisting system.
3.3.2 Torsional Wind Loads
Wind tunnel studies and measurements of wind loading on full scale buildings have identified
that torsional wind loading can be an important structural design consideration. However it is not
surprising that torsional wind loading is often misunderstood or ignored by structural engineers,
when one considers that the prior provisions for torsional wind loading in the NSCP 2001/ASCE
7-95 analytical method were often grossly inadequate (ASCE 7-05C.6.5.12.3). The analytical
method in the NSCP 2010 has been improved to provide more reasonable design estimates of
torsional wind loads applicable to short and midrise buildings that are regular shapes and not
dynamically sensitive, but wind tunnel testing is required for buildings that do not meet these
characteristics. The following highlights mechanisms that can give rise to significant torsional
wind loads:
o Building Shape: Unlike buildings with a cylindrical plan shape, when wind approaches a
rectangular plan building from a skewed angle (oblique to face) the unsymmetricflow
patterns gives rise to a torque loading caused by non-uniform pressure distribution. Also,
for some buildings, even when the wind approaches perpendicular to the building face, if
the geometric center is not aligned with the building center of stiffness torque loading
will also occur. For short and midrise buildings of regular shape the NSCP 2010 now
provides an analytical approach to account for such situations - however for more
unusual plan shapes or irregular structural systems consultation with a wind engineering
expert is recommended since these analytical estimates may beunconservative.
o Modal Coupling: Another common source of torsion wind loads arises due coupled mode
shapes of dynamically sensitive buildings. In such situations, as the sway modes are
excited by buffeting or vortex shedding, the building also dynamically responds with a
simultaneous twisting motion. In situations like this the correlation between the peak
overturning moments (Mx& My) are highly correlated with high torsional moment (Mz)
generating load cases that may be critical for members of the buildings structural system.
This mechanism is not addressed by analytical code methodology for estimating wind
loads and wind tunnel testing is recommended.
o Influence of Neighboring Buildings: A final important source of torsional is generated by
the aerodynamic influence of nearby structures. A common manifestation of this is when
a nearby structure partially shelters the building for some wind directions, generating a
non-uniform pressure distribution that imposes an overall torque on the building. As
described in Section 3.1 above, this is one of the situations when wind tunnel testing is
recommended for dynamically sensitive buildings.

162
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

Similar to across-wind loading, these sources of torsional wind loads can also be reliably
simulated in the wind tunnel testing using either the high-frequency-force-balance (HFFB) or
high-frequency-pressure-integration (HFPI) technique.
3.3.3 Motion and Drift
While it is important to check the design of structural systems for the ultimate limit state wind
loads, for many tall flexible buildings it is the control motions to avoid discomfort and
psychological distress of occupants or excessive drift that governs. For such buildings it is
recommended that the structural engineer collaborates with the wind tunnel consultant to achieve
a structure that is “tuned” to achieve a cost effective, yet comfortable level of performance. The
reader is pointed to Irwin (Technote 2) which provides an overview summary of the perception
of humans to motion in tall buildings and criteria that are commonly used during the design
process.
3.3.4 Aeroelastic Response
Some structures due to the flexibility are prone to significant dynamic motions arising from
“aeroelastic” forces, which occur when flow-induced structure motion change the airflow so that
the motion is in turn affected. This type of feedback can either reduce the energy in the vibrating
structure (adding “positive aerodynamic damping forces”), or add energy (adding “negative
aerodynamic damping forces”) which is destabilizing leading potentially to catastrophic collapse.
Fortunately, for the majority of structures theseaeroelastic forces are not large, but the structural
engineer is recommended to be aware of circumstances when they may be significant since the
consequences can be serious. Perhaps the two most well-known examples of structures that
suffered from aeroelasticexcitation are the Tacoma Narrows Bridge – which dramatically
collapsed in 1940 due toaeroelastic instability – and Boston’s John Hancock Building – which
had to be retrofitted in 1970 with a supplementary damping device due wind-induced motion
which is now believed to have been caused by vortex induced aeroelastic effects (Holmes,
2001).Although there are historic precedents of structures which collapsed due to aeroelastic
phenomena which predates thesetwo examples, they have become notorious as the behavior they
exhibited has been subsequently subject to extensive study by wind engineering researchers
during the emergence of boundary layer wind tunnel testing as a mature science in the 1960’s
and 1970’s.
While aeroelasticity remains a complex phenomenon that is subject to ongoing wind engineering
research, the structural engineer faced with a building or flexible sub-structure of a building
(e.grooftop spires, flagpoles, exposed signboard structures, slender sculptures and retractable
stadium roofs)is recommended to consult with a wind engineering consultant to provide
analytical screening level assessment to determine if such behavior is a possibility and, if
warranted, conduct wind tunnel testing using a aeroelastic model.Aeroelastic model testing is
also sometimes conducted for slender buildings when analysis using rigid aerodynamic models
using the HFFB or HFPI technique indicatesestimates of dynamic response exceed serviceability
criteria and more refined estimates are desired. Unlike rigid aerodynamic models,
aeroelasticmodels are carefully designed to flex in response to the airflow in a “similar” way to
the full scale structure.
Examples of Dynamically Sensitive Structures

163
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

Figure 8a: Proposed Shangri-La, Figure 8b: Proposed Marlins Figure 8c:Indianapolis Air Traffic
Manila Stadium, Miami USA Control Tower, Indiana USA

4. REDUCING CONSERVATISM
Another motivation for commissioning a wind tunnel study is to achieve construction savings by
reducing conservatism inherent in the analytical method of the NSCP. This at first glance
appears paradoxical – how can there be situations (such as those described above) where
designing using the analytical code methodwould be potentially be unsafe, whilst the same time
the method is conservative?
This is explained by considering that the analytical code methods are generally biased toward
being inherently conservative as they adopt a simplified “one-size-fits-all” approach, intended to
envelope the peak wind loads that apply to the building types that are within their scope of
applicability. As such, commissioning a wind tunnel study willreduce any undue conservatism
by providing accurate, precise estimates of the wind loads specific to the building rather than
simplified, generally higher wind loads – while also providing assurance that unusual load
effects, whose impact are typically localized to a portion of the façade or certain critical
structural members only, are identified. The net savings often add up to millions of dollars
(USD), dwarfing the cost of the wind tunnel study. In light of these economic benefits it is not
surprising that hundreds of commercial wind tunnel studies are routinely conducted each year in
situations where the language of the local building code does not require the study.
5. GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING A WIND ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
While there are hundreds of wind tunnels worldwide – many of them housed in engineering
departments at universities - the majority of wind tunnel testing of buildings and civil structures
today are conducted by specialized wind engineering consulting firms that have their own wind
tunnels specifically built and calibrated for this type of testing. This is because the technical
requirements for wind tunnel testing of structures in the atmospheric boundary layer are quite
different to the wind tunnel focused on most aeronautical research (e.g. cars, aircraft). The
consultant needs to haveadvanced rapid-prototyping technology to build detailed models and
data acquisition equipment to keep pace with the demands of modern architectural design and
schedules. Furthermore the majority of the effort occurs after wind tunnel test, when experienced
professional engineers post-processes the data to identify accurate and refined wind load patterns
– a simplified and conservative approach at this stage would cost less in professional fees but
leave the project lacking most of the potential benefit from conducting the study.
When faced with project that requires wind tunnel testing, the author therefore recommends
approaching one of the reputable and specialized wind engineering consultancies with the
expectation that they will adopt a suitable technical approach, using state-of-the-art methodology
with appropriate quality control and have the professional qualifications to take responsibility for
their recommended wind loads.

164
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

6. CONCLUSION
The discussion and criteria provided above highlights the wind engineering phenomena of
relevance to modern structural engineering design and outlines practical guidelines that can be
referenced to identify when wind tunnel testing is recommended. Wind tunnel testing not only
provideseconomic benefits during construction by reducing undue conservatism, it also improves
safety by minimizing the risk of catastrophic loss years later when the building is tested by a
strong wind storm event by identification of unusual wind load effects.

REFERENCES
A.S.C.E. (1999) “Manual of Practice, Number 67: Wind Tunnel Model Studies of Buildings and
Structures”, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York

A.S.C.E. (2005) “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-
05” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

A.S.C.E. (2010) “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-
10” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

ASEP (2010) National Structural Code of the Philippines: 6th Edition - Volume 1 (Buildings, Towers, and
Other Vertical Structures)”, Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP), Manila

Armitt, J., (1980), “Wind loading on cooling towers”, Journal of the Structural Division., ASCE 1980,
106 (ST3)

Chatten, M. P. (2011) “Best Practice Guidelines for the use of Wind Tunnel Testing
in the Structural Design of Buildings”, Draft Conference Paper for Indonesian Society of Civil and
Structural Engineers, HAKI Conference 2011

Holmes, J. D. (2001) “Wind Loading of Structures” Taylor & Francis, Abington

Irwin P. A. “Motion Criteria” RWDI Technotes Issue 2 <www.rwdi.com/cms/publications/9/t02.pdf>
Accessed July 16, 2011

Kumar, S. K. (200^ “The Advantages of Using Wind Tunnel Testing: A Comparison Between Analytical
Methods in International Building Codes and Wind Tunnel Testing for the Purpose of Effective Tall
Building Design” < www.rwdi.com/cms/publications/46/t27.pdf> Accessed July 16, 2011

Kumar, S. K. (2009) “Advancements in the Prediction of Wind Loading of Tall Buildings” Quarterly
Journal of the Indian Society of Structural Engineers, Vol 11-4

Kumar, S. K. (2011) “Guidelines for the Wind Design of High-Rise Buildings” Quarterly Journal of the
Indian Society of Structural Engineers”, Vol 13-1

Pacheco, B. M., Aquino, R. E. R., Tanchuling, M. A. N., Tanzo W. T. (2010) “APEC-WW-2010 Country
Report: Phillipines”, 2009 Workshop on Harmonization of Wind Loading and Wind Environmental
Specifications in Asia-Pacific Economies (APEC-WW), Taipei

Simiu, E., Miyata, T. (2006) “Design of Buildings and Bridges for Wind: A practical guide for ASCE-7
Standard Users and Designers of Special Structures” John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

Willford, M., Whittaker, A. and Klemencic, R. (2008) “Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High
Rise Building”, Draft for Comment-1, 21 February 2008, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat

165
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is derived from a draft conference paper written by the author for the Indonesian Society of
Civil and Structural Engineers, HAKI Conference 2011 in Jakarta (August 25th to 27th, 2011), with
modifications to reflect the wind engineering context of the Philippines and the provisions NCSP 2010.

166