Journal of Industrial Aerodynamics, 2 (1977) 195--209

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

195

MEAN FORCE AND MOMENT COEFFICIENTS FOR BUILDINGS IN TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYERS

R.E. AKINS, J.A. PETERKA

Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 (U.S.A.)
and J.E. CERMAK

Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 (U.S.A.)
(Received September 27, 1976)

Summary
Mean force and m o m e n t coefficients for a series of flat-roofed rectangular buildings are presented for a range of wind directions. The coefficients were determined by integrating mean pressures measured on model structures immersed in thick turbulent boundary layers simulating four typical neutral atmospheric flow conditions (power-law exponents of 0.12, 0.27, 0.34, and 0.38). A series of thirteen different building geometries were studied. The ratios of adjacent sides were 1, 0.5, 0.25, and the aspect ratio, the ratio of the height to the smaller side, ranged from 1 to 8. The effects of side ratio, aspect ratio, incident turbulence intensity, longitudinal integral scale, and the ratio of building height to boundary-layer thickness are discussed.

Introduction Wind loads on buildings and structures are of growing concern as the total yearly cost of damage to structures caused b y wind increases. Use of lighter framing and cladding requires that wind loading be specified accurately in the design process. The prediction of wind loads on structures immersed in the complex flow of the atmospheric b o u n d a r y layer is a difficult problem that has been attacked most effectively b y making measurements on small-scale models in wind tunnels. A considerable b o d y of data is available for overall wind loads on structures o f various shapes measured in wind tunnels with a uniform approach velocity (no variation of wind speed with height). These data have been incorporated, for example, into the Swiss and Canadian building codes. However, Jensen [1] showed that the model must be submerged in a turbulent shear flow that simulates the natural wind if accurate assessments of the wind force on buildings are to be obtained. The techniques of modeling wind forces on buildings in boundary-layer wind tunnels have

196

advanced to such an extent that several national building codes, including the American National Standard Institute Standard A58.1 for wind loading on structures, permit determination of wind loads by adequate wind-tunnel tests. Cermak [2] has provided a review of wind-tunnel modeling history and techniques. Despite these advances, very little organized information is available to describe the overall forces and moments on structures in properly simulated natural winds. In this paper, mean force and moment coefficients for a series of rectangular, flat-roofed buildings are presented which were obtained with the structure immersed in a family of thick turbulent boundary layers whose properties simulate neutrally stable atmospheric flows for winds approaching over surfaces having a variety of uniform roughness. These coefficients were calculated by integrating mean pressures measured on the surface of smallscale buildings and do not include the relatively small contributions of skin friction. The pressure measurements are part of a comprehensive research program at the Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion Laboratory of Colorado State University to obtain a better understanding of mean and fluctuating surface pressures on structures. The techniques used in the determination of these forces and moments are described briefly and plots of selected results are presented. These measure~ ments were conducted on isolated, sharp-edged, smooth rectangular structures, and the results presented do not include information concerning either the effects of corner geometry, surface roughness, or adjacent structures. Because many of these effects, but certainly not all, result in reduced mean loads, these data should provide a useful, and in most cases, slightly conservative loading estimate for rectangular buildings. All results are presented in terms of coefficients based upon a wind speed averaged over the height of the structure. The use of this type of coefficient in most cases resulted in improved similarity of force and moment coefficients for flows corresponding to the different upwind surface conditions. Experimental techniques Buildings and pressure measurements A series of thirteen flat, roofed rectangular buildings were used in the study. The dimensions of these buildings are given in Table 1. The building geometry is described by two ratios -- the side ratio, 7, defined as the ratio of width of the small side to width of the large side, and the aspect ratio, ~, defined as the ratio of the building height to the width of the small side. The Reynolds number listed in Table I is based upon the average velocity over the height of the building, UA, defined in eqn. (7), and the smallest width of the building. These buildings were all made of Plexiglas and instrumented in most cases at 272 separate locations with pressure taps (60 on each vertical face and 32 on the roof). These buildings were mounted on the turntable at the downstream end of a 16.7-m-long test section 2 X 2 m in cross-section.

197

TABLE 1 Building dimensions Building

W L H 7 ~

H/5

Re 1 0 -4

(m) A B C D E F G H J K L M N 0.127 0.127 0.254 0.032 0.064 0.127 0.127 0.254 0.032 0.064 0.127 0.127 0.254

(m) 0.127 0.127 0.254 0.064 0.127 0.254 0.254 0.508 0.127 0.254 0.508 0.508 1.016

(m) Max 0.254 0.508 0.254 0.254 0.254 0.254 0.508 0.254 0.254 0.254 0.254 0.508 0.254 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 2 4 1 8 4 2 4 1 8 4 2 4 1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 9.5 9.0 19.0 1.8 3.7 7.4 9.1 19.0 1.8 4.8 6.8 9.1 14.7 Min 6.5 9.0 13.0 1.8 3.4 6.8 9.1 13.0 1.8 3.3 6.8 9.1 14.7

,y = W/L; ~= H/W.

The facility used was the industrial aerodynamics wind tunnel of t he Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion L a b o r a t o r y . This wind tunnel has an adjustable r o o f t h at was used to eliminate any longitudinal pressure variation in the am bi ent flow over the model. Figure 1 shows the coordi nat e system used t o describe force and m o m e n t c o m p o n e n t s and the flow direction. Pressure measurements were carried o u t using a data-acquisition system consisting of a 72-channel pressure-selector switch, strain-gauge pressure transducers, and a mini-computer/analog-to-digital c o n v e r t e r system. The pressure signals were sampled at 250 samples/s and records 16.3 s long were recorded digitally for data r e duc t i on on a CDC 6400 digital com put er. The pressures measured were t he difference bet w een t he instantaneous local pressure at a location on the building and static pressure in the ambient flow above the m o d e l building. F r e q u e n c y response o f the data-acquisition system was sufficiently high to include all significant pressure fluctuations -- approximately 100 Hz. A detailed description o f the pressure m e a s u r e m e n t system is given by Peterka [3] and Akins [4].
The boundary layers

The f o u r b o u n d a r y layers used in t he study were developed over the length o f the test section (16.7 m) using various-sized roughness elements on the floor and spires at t he entrance to the test section. T he spires were used to artificially stimulate the growth of t he b o u n d a r y layer and provided a constant-depth b o u n d a r y layer f or all o f the roughness configurations. There are a n u m b e r of m e t h o d s of describing t he flow fields in the various b o u n d a r y

198

Iz |

/ /

/ L --7"

WIND DIRECTION affi 0 9 0

/y

DIRECTION = /

l ! I / L

J/

-'~
/

~_.L'~_~L---------X
BUILDING WIDTH

'W = SMALLER

Fig. 1.

Coordinate system and wind directions.

layers, and enough data will be presented to allow rapid conversion to other formats. All data was taken at a nominal free-stream velocity above the boundary layer, U6, of 15 m/s. Figures 2 and 3 show the mean velocity and local turbulence intensity profiles as a function of non-dimensional height in the respective boundary layers. The height in these plots is normalized with respect to the boundarylayer thickness, 5. The local__turbulence intensity is defined as the ratio of the root-mean-square velocity, (u'2) ~, to the mean velocity, U, at a given height in the boundary layers. All velocity measurements were obtained using hotfilm anemometers and digitial data-acquisition techniques. Figure 4 is a plot of the longitudinal velocity spectra in the four boundary layers. When plotted in the coordinates, nS(n)/u '2 against n/u~, one plot describes the longitudinal velocity spectra at heights up to z/a = 0.5 in all four boundary layers. These spectra were obtained using digitaldata acquisition at 4,000 samples per
1.0

O
BOUNDARY LAYER o I (p) O. 12 [] 2 " 0.27 0 3 " 0.54 z~ 4 " 0.38 B = 1.2Tm U~ = 15.0 mls UlUll ; (z 18) p

0.8

d> O

O.E
~O N

0.4 m<>o ~03 o

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6 U/ U8

0.8

1.0

Fig. 2. M e a n velocity prof'flesin the wind tunnel.

199

I.O

O ~3

0.8

e~
Zk

BOUNDARY L A Y E R o I [] 2 <> 3 A 4 8 = 1.27m US= 15.0 m/s

0.6
(I3 m

o Z~

0.4

c~ o(2h

o.2 I0

o~

~ %'~

nO

I0 20 30 40 ,_ 5 0 LOCAL TURBULENCE INTENSITY, (u ~ )/U,%

Fig. 3. Local turbulence intensity.

O28I i BL z/8

r
,
*- 0. t61

z~

o\~

; ~ o:iej

oO:,,i

018!

'io.o8!
I I I

0.01

O. I0

1.0 n / U 8 , m -~

I0.0

I00.0

Fig. 4. Longitudinal velocity spectra.

second and Fast-Fourier-Transform techniques. The spectra can readily be expressed in different formats using the information in Figs. 2 and 3 and Table 2. Table 2 is a compilation of the parameters commonly used to describe the flow in atmospheric boundary layers. Items listed in this table are: 5, the boundary-layer thickness; p, the exponent of power-law which best fits the mean-velocity profile; z0, the effective roughness length of the surface; u./U~, the ratio of the surface shear velocity to the mean free-stream velocity; and Lx, the longitudinal integral scale at a z/8 of 0.2 and 0.4. Additional data concerning the four boundary layers are described by Akins [4].

200 TABLE 2 Boundary-layer characteristics Boundary layer

8 (m) p zo (m) u,/U5 Lx z/~ = 0.2
(m) 1 1.27 0.12 1.2 X 10 -s

z/~ = 0.4
(m) 0.49

2 3
4

1.27 1.27
1.27

0.27 0.34
0.38

2.8 X 10 -3 5.0 X 10 -3
1.1 X 10 -2

0.028 0.052 0.051 0.062

0.40 0.54 0.43 0.34

0.61 0.52 0.55

Data r e d u c t i o n Force and m o m e n t coefficients were c o m p u t e d by integrating t he mean pressures over the surface o f the building. It was established through a m o r e sophisticated integration p r o c e d u r e t ha t accurate forces on the buildings were obtained if an appropriate area was assigned t o each pressure-tap location and a v ecto r summing of pressure times its representative area was used. The forces and m o m e n t s on t he buildings were expressed in terms of
(1)

CFX = 0.5p UA 2 W H

Fy
CFy 0.50 UA 2L H

(2)
(3)

CFZ

0.5p UA 2 WL

Mx
CMX = 0.5p []A2LH 2
My

(4)

CMy =

(5) (6)

O. 5p [] A 2 WH2

CMZ =

0.5p U A 2 W L H

The symbols are described in the n o m e n c l a t u r e section. The measured force and m o m e n t coefficients were collapsed o n t o a small n u m b e r of curves by using an average velocity over the height of the building. This velocity, UA, is defined as

201
H

UA - H

--

f
0

U(z)dz

(7)

The use of an average velocity instead of an average of the velocity squared was based on how well the force coefficients for the various b o u n d a r y layers agreed when using each type. There was n o t a major difference, b u t the mean velocity was chosen in preference to the mean of the squared velocity because of better agreement between the various cases. OA was calculated from measured values of the velocity profile and n o t from a power-law or logarithmic expression for the profile. The coordinate system used to describe the forces and m o m e n t s is shown in Fig. 1. These forces and m o m e n t s are in a b o d y reference system, i.e., Fx is always defined relative to a fixed direction on the building independent of wind direction. The m o m e n t s in the x and y directions are with respect to the base of the building and the m o m e n t in the z direction is with respect to the vertical axis through the center of the building. Force and m o m e n t coefficients were c o m p u t e d from mean surface-pressure data measured at eleven wind directions over a 90 range. Since all of the buildings studied were placed in an isolated environment with no adjacent structures present, a 90 variation in wind direction is adequate to define the forces and m o m e n t s acting on the structure for any wind direction. No corrections for tunnel blockage were applied because blockage was small (less than 7 percent) and the flexible roof was adjusted to remove the longitudinal pressure gradient in the tunnel.

Uncertainty of the data

Two independent methods were used to establish an estimate of the uncertainty of the measured coefficients. The buildings with ~ = I were studied at wind directions of both 0 and 90 . Due to the s y m m e t r y of these buildings and the fact that these measurements were generally made on separate days and in some cases after the models had been removed from the wind tunnel between runs, a comparison of the coefficients measured at these wind directions provided a means of assessing the repeatability of the measurements. An average of eight cases showed a difference of 1.8 percent for the force coefficients and 1.7 percent for the m o m e n t coefficients. A separate evaluation established the repeatability of each mean pressure coefficient as 0.03. Converting this to a force coefficient and adding in a mean-square manner over two sides of the structure gives an estimate of error in terms of force coefficient 0.02. Based on a value of force coefficient 1.0, this represents a 2.0 percent probable error. These estimates of uncertainty do n o t include the effect of neglecting the skin friction or the error due to representing the pressure over an area by a single tap. Estimates of these errors indicated negligible effects due to skin friction and an error probably less than 50 percent o f the estimated error above due to tap spacing.

202 Results and discussion The consideration o f mean force and m o m e n t coefficients was motivated by an interest in isolating relevant building and flow variables and obtaining a small n u m b e r of plots which could be used for a range of b o t h building geometry and flow conditions. While minor effects were present which could be attributed to many of the variables, the most significant variable was the side ratio o f the building. The mean force and m o m e n t coefficients for each side ratio considered (7 = 1.0, 0.5, 0.25) are shown in Figs. 5, 6, and 7 respectively. When considered as a function of side ratio, the mean force and m o m e n t coefficients all fall within a relatively small range for all building sizes in all of the b o u n d a r y layers studied. With several exceptions discussed in more detail later, the differences b e t w e e n the various cases for a fixed side ratio are n o t significant. Figures 5c, 6c, and 7c show the direction of the resultant horizontal force, 0 R, acting on the buildings. The coordinate system used in the 0 R measurements is such that a force in the x direction has a 0 R of 0 and a force in the negative y direction has a 0 R of 90 . Similar force, moment, and resultant direction plots for ~'s of 0.5 and 0.25 are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. In almost all cases the coefficients are independent of the ratios HI8, H/zo, and ~. The effect of decreasing 7 can be seen clearly in the ~rend of resultant force directions shown in Figs. 5c, 6c, and 7c. As T decreases OR becomes closer to 90 for the entire range of wind directions examined. The exceptions noted above are apparently due to variations in incident turbulence intensity and the m e t h o d of defining the y - m o m e n t coefficient. The effect of local turbulence intensity is of importance for wind directions 00--20 and 700--90 for ~/= 1, and for wind directions 70--90 for 7 = 0.5 and 7 = 0.25. These cases are n o t of great importance when considered with respect to mean loading since the mean loads are small where the curves do n o t collapse in Figs. 5--7, b u t the shape of some of the force--coefficient curves in this region are of importance in consideration of the dynamics of the structure. The most striking aspect of these regions is seen in the plots of the resultant force direction, Figs. 5c, 6c, and 7c. There are regions in all three of these plots in which there is a c o m p o n e n t of force in a direction opposite to the corresponding c o m p o n e n t of the approach wind. This reversal of direction is due to the reattachment of the flow on a side face. The location of reattachment was determined by flow visualization techniques and consideration of the mean and fluctuating surface pressures. Figure 8 is a diagram o f the separation and reattachment p h e n o m e n a which may occur on a side face of the structure. The distance from the separation -edge of the reattachment face is denoted b y r. T w o distinct trends were observed by b o t h flow-visualization techniques and b y examination of the fluctuating pressures -- (1) for a given wind direction and fixed geometry of the building (7,/3 constant), r decreased with increasing turbulence intensity

203
BLDG BL
BLDG
RL

3 2 34
)

1.2

u 0.8 0.4 0.4

04
,,:.-0.4
~ e

t
[] o

0.8
o
O1~'~9-

~ 0c

2
5

7=1

----

L: 0.8l ~,~ ~ ~
_ i r___

i o J

-0.8 -1.2 -1.6 1"6I

0.8 0.4 00

--

_d

0.8 0.4
o,
-0.4 -0.8 7=I

O~OOo te

2'0 4'0 dO 8'0 a-WIND DIRECTIONDEGREES

7=1 I00

-l'2ob

--20 - #O dO 8'0' ~Go a- WIND DIRECTION-DEGREES

I00

80

o/

/
60

/J
t "~/;

ill
BLDG BL ,8

40

20

0 d

6 -21C

7=1

25

4'0

6'0

8'0

,Go

a-WIND DIRECTION-DEGREES

Fig. 5. F o r c e and m o m e n t coefficients -y = 1. a. force coefficients, b. m o m e n t coefficients. c . resultant force direction.

204
B D BL L G

1.6

BLDG BL B

1.21
(J

G H
H

I'iI
1.2

F G 2
~ H '

0.8

0.4 0 -0.4 0 -0.4

-0.8
,

1 u
[]
0

0.8
o

"~':o.~,

~!~
r

Y=C

(J - I . 2
-I.6

0.4 0.0 {!

-2. 0

%7 Y:O.5

-0.
0.8
0.4
(J

;,'=o

0.8

0.4

i!

o, ~ - ~ ,
0.4
-0.8

~~

Y:O.5

2tO 4'0 6;0 80 = - WIND DIRECTION-DEGREES

b
0

X=O.
t

IOO

20 4() 60 80 a - WIND DIRECTION-DEGREES

I0(

I00

B 80
tl 6O 40
// /

/ // x//

~(bo 8 /// /

/ /

BLDG BL B

20
/ /

,/c
00' 2'0 40 6'0 8'0 a - WIND DIRECTION - DEGREES

y=0.5 I 0'0

Fig. 6. F o r c e a n d m o m e n t c o e f f i c i e n t s 7 = 0.50. a. f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t s , b. m o m e n t coefficients, c. r e s u l t a n t f o r c e d i r e c t i o n .

205

1.6 1.2 u.
t)

0.8

BLDG. BL ,8 0 J 2 8 [3 K I 4 0 K 2 4 h, K S 4 '9' L 5 2 + M 2 4

BLOG 6L

0.4 0
, ~ 7:0.25

' tl:l
o

!!
3
l

[]

[3

-0.4 -0.4

jf ,,;
1.6 I..C
x x x x

7=0.25

-0.8 ~i~
(J

~ 0 C] 3

.~
~ D
[3

0.8

-I.6

0.4~
0
7 =0.25
L J

-2.0
- 2.4 1.6 L__

~ +
x

+ 7=0.25
i

-0.4

[
0.8~-

(D

o o

~o ~o

!
[] [3 0,41

x x x x ? V ~ V

0,4'~

7=0.25

~o--

8o

I00

-4lob 2; ~0--- do
a-WIND

~'o

0-7=0.25

~6o

a - WIND DIRECTION- DEGREES

DIRECTION-DEGREES

IOC

8C

60
/

BLDG BL B

4o

/
20

gK
N 2

/
/c O~

/
a-

~-:o.25
20 40 0 80 WIND DIRECTION-DEGREES I00

Fig. 7. F o r c e and m o m e n t c o e f f i c i e n t s 7 = 0.25. a. force c o e f f i c i e n t s , b. m o m e n t coefficients, c. resultant force direction.

206 tY x

Fig. 8. Flow separation and reattachment.

and (2) as the side length, L, increased for a fixed L x , wind direction, and turbulence intensity (as the ratio of L / L x increased), r/L decreased. In addition as r decreased, the value of the pressure in the separation bubble increased (became less negative). Thus a larger separation bubble resulted in a m o r e negative pressure on the sepamtion-reattachment face and a t e n d e n c y to cause a force in a direction opposite to the approach-flow direction. This characteristic of the force coefficient was observed primarily for low turbulence intensity (15 percent and less) and the smaller building sizes tested ( L / L x small). As noted above, the location of the reattachment region is influenced n o t only by the geometry of the particular body and the approach wind direction, but also by the turbulence level in the approach flow and the longitudinal integral scale of the turbulence L x . The effects of incident turbulence intensity on force coefficients for two-dimensional bodies in a uniform flow has recently been investigated by Laneville et al. [5] ; other studies have been reviewed by Cermak [6]. The range of turbulence intensity for this investigation is higher, and the aspect ratio, ~, is smaller than considered in either o f these references. The general trends in the mean force coefficients with increasing turbulence intensity observed in this study are the same as those discussed in references [ 5] and [6]. A more complete discussion of reattachm e n t on three-dimensional shapes in boundary-layer flows is given by Akins [41. One particular situation did show a combined effect of aspect ratio and side ratio. The curves for CMy in Figs. 6b and 7b show an increase for buildings H and N for wind directions 0--30 . This increase in CMy is due to the increased contribution to the y m o m e n t due to the suction of the roof as L / H increases. CMy was defined in eqn. (5) using a factor of W H 2 , the area of the smaller face multiplied by the height of the building. The contribution to the y - m o m e n t due to the suction on the roof should be divided by a factor of the form W L 2 t o accurately nondimensionalize these effects. In order to make the coefficient easy to use, the factor W H 2 was

207

1.6
( 0 0 0

o '~
~'

i cF,iI o I [3 Cry 90 I
0 CFz [ o ] tax 190 I %,~ / o o I % z ~ 9 _J

WIND

,,z 0.8'
(O

~:
x

0.4
0.0

:a_b-o. 8! cJ - i .2 z
lxl-[.

,s,

BOUNDARY LAYER 2 7=0.5 0

<

G-

Fig. 9. F o r c e a n d m o m e n t

c o e f f i c i e n t s as a f u n c t i o n o f a s p e c t r a t i o , ~.

selected as being most appropriate. This results in the r o o f effect being weighted b y a factor of W L 2 / W H 2 or ( L / H ) 2 . For buildings H and N, this factor is 4 and 16 respectively, resulting in a much greater influence of the r o o f suction on the CMy than was present in the other cases, and hence an increase in CMy. It is felt that the form of the coefficient used is appropriate because of its simplicity. The use of the collapsed band of data to predict CMy will give a low estimate for a from 0 to 30 for cases where the long side of the building is greater than the height H. In almost all cases, the aspect ratio, fl, has no significant effect. Figure 9 is a plot of the force and m o m e n t coefficients as a function of/3 for selected cases. Over the range of ~ considered, no significant variation is evident. No significant effects are apparent which could be attributed to the properties of the mean velocity profile. The results for various power-law exponents (0.12--0.38) or the ratio o f H / z o (4.2 104--2.3 10 ~) all agree for a given side ratio. No effects of the ratio of the building height to boundary-layer thickness, H / f , are apparent for the range examined (0.2--0.4). Conclusions On the basis of this study, the following conclusions may be drawn: 1. Mean forces and m o m e n t s for a series of rectangular buildings in a modeled atmospheric flow were f o u n d to collapse to reasonably similar curves when expressed in force and m o m e n t coefficient form in which the velocity was expressed as an average over the height of the building. These curves were found to be a function of the ratio of the side lengths of the building and, with minor exceptions, were n o t a function of other variables such as

208

boundary-layer characteristics, ratio of building height to narrow side, or ratio of building height to boundary-layer height. 2. Two exceptions to the good collapse of the data to c o m m o n curves were observed: (a) The coefficient CMy for values of L/H > 1 was dependent on the value of L/H for some wind directions. (b) Incident turbulence intensity and the ratio of side width to longitudinal integral scale had a marked effect on the forces and moments over a limited range of wind direction. This effect was not large in terms of the overall mean loading but could be important in considerations of the dynamics of the building.

Acknowledgment The work described in thispaper was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant E N G 72-04260-A01).
Nomenclature CFX CFy CFZ x-force coefficient y-force coefficient z-force coefficient x-moment coefficient y-moment coefficient z-moment coefficient

CMx cMy CMZ

H L Lx
n

P Re
r

height of building width of largerside of building longitudinal integralscale frequency, Hz exponent of power-law profile Reynolds number UA W/p reattachment distance
longitudinal velocity spectrum mean velocity mean velocity at the top of the boundary layer average velocity over height of building fluctuating velocity c o m p o n e n t surface shear velocity dimension of smaller building side horizontal coordinate horizontal coordinate vertical coordinate roughness length wind direction aspect ratio, H/W

S(n) U

U6
U' U,

W
X

Y
Z Zo o~

209

6 OR P P

side ratio W/L b o u n d a r y - l a y e r thickness direction of resultant horizontal force k i n e m a t i c viscosity o f air d e n s i t y o f air

References
1 M. Jensen, The Model-Law for Phenomena in Natural Wind, Ingenieren, International Edition, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1958. 2 J.E. Cermak, Applications of fluid mechanics to wind engineering -- a Freeman scholar lecture, A S M E J. Fluids Eng., Vol. 97, Ser. 1, No. 1, March 1975. 3 J.A. Peterka, Fluctuating-pressure tests for cladding design, Meeting, Preprint 2457 A S C E National Structural Engineering Convetion, N e w Orleans, Louisiana, April 14-18, 1975. 4 R.E. Akins, Wind pressures on structures, Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State University, 1976. 5 A. Lanevilte, I.S. Gartshore and G.V. Parkinson, An explanation of some effects of turbulence on bluff bodies, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures, London, England, September 1975, pp. 333--342. 6 J.E. Cermak, Aerodynamics of buUdings, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 8 (1976).