Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 90 (2002) 711732

Pressure distributions on a cube in a simulated thunderstorm downburstPart A: stationary downburst observations

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford*
Department of Civil Engineering Wind Science and Engineering Center, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-1023, USA Received 10 December 2001; received in revised form 19 March 2002; accepted 20 March 2002

Abstract Thunderstorms are responsible for a large amount of wind-induced damage around the world. It is known that the wind characteristics in thunderstorms, particularly downbursts, differ signicantly from those of synoptic scale boundary layer winds. This paper describes a study aimed at simulating the ow structure in a downburst and obtaining the pressure eld on a cube immersed in such a ow. Part A presents the data obtained from a stationary wall jet simulation of a thunderstorm downburst, while Part B presents the data from a moving downburst simulation. The pressure distributions on the cube are compared with data from uniform and boundary layer ows. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction An atmospheric boundary layer wind prole currently forms the basis for calculating wind loads on structures [13], and has been the prole employed in wind tunnel simulations to obtain wind loading data either explicitly for specic buildings or implicitly through codied data for generic building shapes. However, thunderstorms are responsible for design wind speeds in many parts of the world [4,5] and the wind characteristics of thunderstorms are known to be different from boundary layer wind proles. From these differences it may be anticipated that wind loading of both low- and high-rise buildings will be signicantly different from those in traditional boundary layer ows. In particular, at low level the wind prole is more
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-806-742-3476; fax: +1-806-742-3446. E-mail address: cletchford@coe.ttu.edu (C.W. Letchford). 0167-6105/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 6 1 0 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 5 8 - 7

712

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

uniform with height, potentially leading to increased loads on low-rise structures, while at high level the reduction in wind velocity with elevation could reduce the wind loads on high-rise buildings. Full-scale observations [69], and physical simulations [1012] using wall jets have helped give a better understanding of these phenomena and Letchford et al. [5] recently reviewed this work, however, there has been little attempt to assess and quantify the impact of thunderstorm wind proles on the wind loading of structures. This study aimed to establish a viable simulation of a thunderstorm downburst and obtain surface pressure distributions on a generic building shapea cube immersed in this ow. Comparisons would then be made with pressure distributions in other ow simulations, namely uniform and turbulent boundary layer ows to ascertain the signicance of the new impinging ow type. The downburst was simulated by a stationary wall jet, which has previously been shown [1012] to give a reasonable representation of the mean velocity prole (mean here applies to the short time averaged (several minutes) wind velocities measured at full-scale). To obtain better kinematic similarity of the ow and hence report meaningful unsteady pressure measurements, a moving wall jet was constructed so that the transient characteristics of a thunderstorm gust front could be obtained. Part A of this paper presents the results from the stationary wall jet simulation of the downburst, while Part B [24] presents results from the moving simulation. In the following section the basic characteristics of thunderstorm downbursts are reviewed. Section 3 reviews previous wind pressure measurements on cubes. In Section 4, the wall jet and velocity characteristics of the stationary downburst simulation are described. Section 5 compares the mean pressure distributions on a cube immersed in the stationary wall jet with earlier studies in uniform and boundary layer ows. A discussion of the experimental results is presented in Section 6.

2. Thunderstorm downbursts characteristics Letchford et al. [5] discuss the general characteristics of thunderstorms. Fundamentally, convection drives an updraft, which transports warm moist, more buoyant, air to great elevations. Subsequently, the moisture in this air condenses, cools, and the upward motion is halted. The now colder more dense air begins to accelerate toward the ground as a downdraft. Downbursts occur when a strong downdraft collides with the surface of the earth and diverges. Close to the point of impact the ow resembles that of a wall jet. As the ow spreads out over the ground it behaves as a gravity or density current. The ow eld created by such an event, particularly near the impact point, varies from an atmospheric boundary layer wind eld in a number of fundamental ways. Firstly, the traditional boundary layer prole, of increasing wind velocity with height is no longer valid as a region of accelerated ow exists close to the surface with a decrease in velocity with height. Downdrafts and consequently downbursts exist over a range of scales; Fujita [6] classied them as microbursts if the area of damaging winds was o4 km in extent and macrobursts if >4 km. Typically

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

713

Fig. 1. Velocity prole of a typical microburst during JAWS (Hjelmfelt [8]).

microbursts produced the higher winds. The full-scale observations of downbursts during Fujitas NIMROD experiments [6] and the JAWS [8] experiments produced quantitatively similar results for microbursts. The Hjelmfelt [8] summary of the JAWS results is reproduced in Fig. 1. On average, the maximum wind velocity occurred at a height of E80 m at a distance of E1.5 km from the point of impact. This was for an average downburst diameter of 1.8 km. Thus, the strongest winds were observed within about one downdraft diameter from its point of impact. The primary data sources for wind velocities were three Doppler radars [8] and, a low level, automated mesonets with an average spacing of 4 km. The Doppler radars were able to scan approximately every 2.5 min. Wilson et al. [9] present a full discussion on the full-scale analysis techniques and estimation of errors. Secondly, downdrafts often retain large amounts of the translational momentum of the parent storm. Storm velocities can be as much as a third the velocity of the downdraft [5]. The lateral motion of the downdraft causes an increase in the peak downburst velocity in front of the storm, and a decrease in the velocity on the trailing side. Due to the translating motion of the downdraft, stationary objects experience downburst winds as non-stationary events. The effect of the transient nature of such phenomena, in particular, the vortex ring at the leading edge of the downdraft has not been previously investigated and is the subject of the Part B of this paper.

714

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

Fig. 2. The pressure eld of a microburst (Fujita [7]).

Thirdly, current procedures for assessing wind loads on structures assume a constant ambient atmospheric pressure. However, signicant variation of atmospheric pressure can be experienced within the ow eld of a downburst. Stagnation occurs in the central region beneath the downdraft as it approaches the ground, forming a high-pressure dome known as a mesohigh (Fig. 2). A low-pressure ring forms as the downburst ow diverges and accelerates to the peak horizontal velocity. The relative magnitude of the pressure decrease is dependant on the translational velocity of the storm [7]. Beyond the low-pressure ring, deceleration of the outow forms another slightly less intense high-pressure region, outside of which the pressure returns to the ambient pressure. The varying pressure eld of a downburst may have serious implications with respect to design loads on structures. Fujita [7] speculated that these rapid pressure changes could be as high as 23 hPa, which may result in a signicant increase in the load applied to sealed structures in the outow region. As the downburst is a transient phenomenon, the pressure variation described by Fujita is naturally a transient one as well and is due to the accelerations within the ow.

3. Previous investigations of pressures on a cube Numerous previous studies [1320] provide a comprehensive description of the pressure distribution over a cube immersed in both uniform (i.e., a wind eld showing little or no change in velocity as a function of height) and boundary layer wind elds (i.e., a wind eld showing an increase in velocity as a function of height

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

715

due to the effects of surface roughness). These studies have involved physical and numerical simulations, and full-scale measurements. The following paragraphs detail a few of the more notable papers. Baines [13] undertook early wind tunnel studies on a cube immersed in uniform and boundary layer ows. Unfortunately, no turbulence characteristics of the boundary layer ow are reported. He reports pressure distributions on each face of the cube, for the cube positioned with one face normal to the direction of ow. Castro and Robins [14] also undertook wind tunnel tests on a cube. Pressures were measured on a 60 mm cube in a uniform ow, and a 200 mm cube in a 2 m high boundary layer (constituting a scale of between 1:1000 and 1:300 for the boundary layer case) with a turbulence intensity of 27% at eaves height. Measurements were made with the cube face normal to the ow and at 451 to the ow. Castro and Robins also investigated the effects of varying the boundary layer characteristics acting on the cube. They found that a higher turbulence intensity favored reattachment of ow over the cube, and hence a reduced suction in the reattached region of the roof and leeward wall, for a ow normal to one face of the model. . The study reported by Holscher and Niemann [16], involved a comparative experiment of pressures over a cube across some 15 wind tunnels in Europe. There is a surprising amount of scatter in the results much of which was attributed to differences in turbulence intensities in the various boundary layer simulations. Paterson and Apelt [18] performed a numerical simulation using a k e turbulence model to simulate a boundary layer ow around a cube with one face normal to the direction of ow. They performed the study under similar conditions to those Castro and Robins [14] investigated. However, the Paterson and Apelt study yielded greater mean pressures near the windward edge of the roof than Castro and Robins. Paterson and Apelt observed that increasing turbulence intensity promoted reattachment on the roof of the cube, supporting Castro and Robins wind tunnel observations. Richards et al. [20] collected full-scale data using the Silsoe Cube, which stands 6 m high and had 16 pressure transducers across its centerline. The cube is situated in an open eld at the Silsoe Research Institute in the United Kingdom. Richards et al. observed pressures on the cube with winds perpendicular and at 451 to the centerline pressure tap distribution. Turbulence intensities between 12% and 19% at cube eaves height occurred during the study. Fig. 3 shows the mean pressure coefcient distribution along the developed centerline of the cube, with the windward face being between positions 0 and 1, the roof between 1 and 2 and the leeward wall between 2 and 3. The ow is normal to the front face (01 orientation). The pressure coefcients were formed by using the velocity at the top of cube as the reference velocity for the dynamic pressure. Baines [13] and Castro and Robins [14] observed similar pressures along the centerline of a cube immersed in uniform ow for this ow direction. However, signicant variation exists between the pressure distributions for boundary layer ow over a cube at this orientation. The size of the separated ow region, and consequently the magnitude of the leeward wall pressure, represents the primary difference between the various studies and differences in turbulence intensities are the likely cause. Richards et al.

716
1.5

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

Castro and Robins, Uniform Flow Castro and Robins, Boundary Layer Flow

Baines, Uniform Flow Baines, Boundary Layer Flow

0.5

Paterson and Apelt, Boundary Layer Flow Richards et al., Full Scale Measurements

Cp

-0.5
1

-1
3 0

-1.5
0 1 Position 2 3

Fig. 3. Comparison of centerline pressures on a cube under various ow regimes with one face normal to the direction of ow.

[20] observed reattachment further downstream than the three boundary layer simulations, which is consistent with the reduced turbulence that occurred during the full-scale measurements.

4. Downburst simulation 4.1. The Moving Jet Wind Tunnel For the current study, an inverted wall jet capable of translational movement, and termed the Moving Jet Wind Tunnel, produced the downburst simulation. Fig. 4 shows a schematic of the arrangement, which was a further development of that used by Letchford and Mans [21]. A 5.6 kW centrifugal blower running at 3450 rpm drove air through extensive ow conditioning in the form of a settling chamber, screens, two layers of honeycomb and a 4:1 contraction. The 0.51 m diameter jet (D) blew against an extensive at test surface positioned 870 mm (1.7D) above its outlet. The test surface was smooth-painted plywood. The asymmetry caused by the adjacent wall was countered by leaving a 150 mm gap at the edge of the test surface. Full details may be found in Chay [22]. As downbursts typically contain much colder, denser, air than that surrounding, the effort here has been aimed at producing a nonentraining jet. Thus, the nozzle outlet should be close to the surface. As a further

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732
Cube

717

3.9m

2.4m

0.15m

X Z

Pitot

5m

Switches

1.1m

Fig. 4. The Moving Jet Wind Tunnel.

12

10

8 Velocity (m/s)

4 Longitudinal Traverse 2 Lateral Traverse 0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Diameters from Center

Fig. 5. Velocity proles half a diameter above the jet outlet.

means of reducing entrainment, a 50 mm lip around the nozzle outlet was added to retard shear layer development between the ambient air and the jet. The outlet velocity and turbulence intensity proles at half a diameter above the jet outlet are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. Longitudinal refers to the traversing direction of the moving jet while only half the lateral prole is shown, as this was the limit of the anemometer traverse mechanism. This location was chosen

718

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732
50 45 40 Longatudinal Traverse Lateral Traverse

Turbulence Intensity (%)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Diameters from Center

Fig. 6. Turbulence intensity proles half a diameter above the jet outlet.

to be well clear of the screen and honeycomb at the jet outlet and away from the inuence of the ground plane. The average velocity here (Vref ) was E10 m/s with a turbulence intensity of E4%. Fig. 7 shows the velocity spectrum on the jet centerline half a diameter above the jet outlet and indicates little high frequency content in the jet and lower magnitude uctuations than might be anticipated in a boundary layer ow. Fig. 8 shows the reduction in jet velocity as it approaches the testing surface. The decay is small above 1 jet diameter and decreases linearly below 0.7 jet diameters to zero at the surface. The blower was mounted on rails and could be translated manually at approximately constant velocity of up to 2 m/s, as timed by a pair of switches mounted on the track 5 m apart. One switch was positioned directly under the model location (X 0) to synchronize jet motion and model pressures. The results for the moving jet are presented in Part B of this paper [24]. A model cube of side length 30 mm was constructed from 2 mm thick Perspex and 38 tappings of 1 mm diameter were located around the cube. Tappings were distributed along a vertical centerline with six equally spaced pressure taps located on the windward and leeward walls and seven equally spaced taps across the roof. An additional six equally spaced taps in a horizontal prole recorded pressures along one sidewall at mid-height. A dense grid of 13 taps provided a more detailed record of pressures on one roof corner. The tappings were connected by 200 mm of 1.02 mm diameter tubing to a Scanivalve ZOC33 64Px pressure measurement system and

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732
1 0.1 1 10

719

100

0.1

Magnitude ((m/s)^2/Hz)

0.01

0.001

0.0001

0.00001 Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 7. Velocity power spectrum at half a diameter above the center of the jet outlet.

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 Z/D 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 V/Vref 0.8 1.0 1.2

Fig. 8. Non-dimensional velocity decay prole between the jet and testing surface along the jet centerline. The outlet of the jet is located at Z=D 1:7:

720

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

sampled at 400 Hz for 60 s. Dynamic calibration of the pressure measurement system revealed that there was E10% amplitude magnication at 100 Hz. While corrections to the frequency response for stationary tests could have been undertaken, they would have been problematical for the transient moving jet tests (detailed in Part B) and for consistency and because the amplication was small, no corrections to pressure data were made. Furthermore, pressure spectra revealed negligible amplitude at frequencies above 100 Hz. The reference pressure was background atmospheric pressure in the laboratory, well away from the jet. A Cartesian coordinate system with an origin at the center of the base of the model, located on the centerline of the moving jet, was employed, with Z measured away from the surface and positive X being upstream of the model. The jet diameter (D) was used to non-dimensionalize all distance in this study. 4.2. Experimental procedure Velocity proles produced by the wall jet were obtained using a TSI IFA300 hot wire anemometer system and single wire hot lm probes sampled at 200 Hz for 20 s and repeated several times. The hot wire was mounted parallel to the test surface. Velocities were non-dimensionalized by the centerline jet mean velocity (Vref ) measured at the reference location of half a diameter beyond the jet outlet (at Z=D 1:2 and X =D 0) before and after each traverse. Vertical velocity proles were obtained for various stationary positions of the jet away from the origin (0pX =Dp3) for heights ranging from 3 to 153 mm. At each X =D position of the jet, a mean velocity ratio between the reference location and at the roof or eaves height of the cube, 30 mm, was also obtained for later pressure coefcient reduction of the cube pressures. A miniature pitot-static tube positioned half a diameter above the jet outlet (Z=D 1:2), was sampled at the beginning and end of each pressure test run and was used as an initial reference dynamic pressure when non-dimensionalizing cube pressures. Pressure measurements over the cube were obtained for stationary jet positions ranging from 0pX =Dp3 and for two cube orientations, 01 and 451 to a face. The jet-induced static pressure over the inverted ground surface was obtained by measuring the pressure at a ush-mounted tap at the model location (X =D 0) without the model in place. This was undertaken for the jet in positions 0pX =Dp3: 4.3. Stationary jet velocity proles Fig. 9 shows the mean velocity proles over the test surface as a function of the position of the jet. The velocities have been non-dimensionalized by the outlet velocity of the jet at the reference location, while heights have been nondimensionalized by the jet diameter. These velocities were obtained from the single lm probe and as such represent the velocity magnitude. In regions close to stagnation and well above the test surface, the velocity will have signicant vertical component. The height of the cube is also shown on the gure for reference.

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732
0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 Z/D 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 V/Vref 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

721

X/D=0.0 X/D=0.5 X/D=0.75 X/D=1.0 X/D=1.25 X/D=1.5 X/D=2.0 X/D=3.0

Fig. 9. Non-dimensional wind velocity proles over the testing surface as a function of distance from the stagnation point X =D 0 for a stationary jet.

When the jet is placed directly over the measuring point, X =D 0; the jet velocity decreases linearly to the stagnation point on the test surface. Note for this location the reference velocity is located at 1.2 diameters above the surface (i.e., at Z=D 1:2; V =Vref 1). The characteristic nose of a wall jet develops after 0.75 diameters, reaching maximum mean velocity at about 1 diameter and then gradually slowing and thickening as the test surface induces boundary layer growth. At X =D 1; the largest velocity in the prole is approximately the same as the reference wind velocity (V =Vref 1). At this point in the ow, the wall jet is thin and the ow is predominantly horizontal. The almost constant velocity with height indicates that the effect of surface roughness has not developed in this region, and that the boundary layer that must form over the testing surface is lower than the lowest measurement point (3 mm). Castro and Robins [13] observed for their uniform ow tests a boundary layer thickness of between 2 and 6 mm. The geometric scale of the current simulation may be estimated based on the velocity proles of the stationary jet. Hjelmfelt [8] observed that the parent downdraft of a typical microburst had a 1.8 km diameter and that the maximum outow winds occurred at E1.5 km from the center of the descending column of air. Based on these observations, the Moving Jet Wind Tunnel simulation has a geometric scale of E1:35001:3000. However, as Hjelmfelt observed microbursts with diameters ranging between 1.2 and 3.1 km, the current simulation may represent a range of scales based upon these dimensions. A velocity scale is more difcult to determine as the full-scale velocities in the downdraft ranged from 6 to 22 m/s, compared with the B10 m/s here. It becomes more important to dene a velocity scale when the jet translates and this is the subject of Part B [24].

722

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732
0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 Z/D 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Turbulence Intensity (%)

X/D=0.0 X/D=0.5 X/D=0.75 X/D=1.0 X/D=1.25 X/D=1.5 X/D=2.0 X/D=3.0 Eaves Height 140 160

Fig. 10. Turbulence intensity proles over the testing surface as a function of distance from the stagnation point X =D 0 for a stationary jet.

The turbulence intensities (standard deviation/mean velocity) for the wall jet as a function of distance from jet stagnation point (X =D 0) are presented in Fig. 10. Little turbulence occurred in the ow close to the stagnation point, although as the mean velocity tended to zero, the turbulence intensity became very large. When positioned between X =D 0:5 and 0:75; the jet produced turbulence intensities of E13% over the height of the cube. At the point of maximum mean wind velocity, X =D 1; the turbulence intensity was 20% over the height of the cube. At greater distances from stagnation the turbulence intensities become very large and possibly beyond the ability of the probe to accurately respond. This is because the mean velocity in these regions is tending to zero. Wood et al. [10] investigated the effect of varying the distance between the jet outlet and the testing surface (Zj ) on the wind velocity prole. Fig. 11 compares Woods results, with those of the current tests, and those of earlier tests at the University of Queensland [21] at the location of greatest velocity BX =D 1: Wood used a 300 mm diameter jet with Vref 20 m/s, and Letchford and Mans [21] a 430 mm jet with Vref 7 m/s. It is clear that there is a distinct relationship between velocity prole and distance of jet from test surface (Zj ). The closer the jet outlet to the test surface, the thicker and faster is the wall jet. This is not surprising as the simulation is effectively a free jet that will dissipate approximately as the square root of distance from the nozzle or outlet. In the studies shown in Fig. 11, the maximum mean velocities remained at distances of E1 diameter from jet stagnation, irrespective of distance between jet and wall (Zj ). Hjelmfelt [8] analyzed the wind velocity proles of eight full-scale downbursts. Fig. 12 shows a comparison of Hjelmfelts investigation to the wind velocity proles

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732
0.7 Wood et al. Zj = 0.5D 0.6 Letchford and Mans Zj = 1.25D Chay Zj = 1.7D 0.5 Wood et al. Zj = 2.0D Wood et al. Zj = 5.0D 0.4 Z/D

723

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 V/Vref 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Fig. 11. Comparison of non-dimensional velocity proles at X =D 1 with various separations of jet outlet from testing surface (Zj ).
4.5 4 3.5 full-scale minimum 3 Z/Zmax 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 V/Vmax 0.8 1 1.2 full-scale mean full-scale maximum X/D=0.75 X/D = 1.0 X/D=1.25 X/D=1.5

Fig. 12. Comparison of non-dimensional velocity proles to full-scale data (Hjelmfelt [8]).

produced between 0:75pX =Dp1:5 from the current study. The velocities have been non-dimensionalized by the maximum velocity in each prole while heights have been non-dimensionalized by the elevation at which the maximum velocity occurred. The wind velocity proles of the current study show less variation than the full-scale

724

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

data, which is rather limited. However, the overall trends are similar, indicating that a wall jet is a reasonable representation of the mean wind prole. 4.4. Static pressure eld A single pressure tap on the testing surface recorded the static pressure variation within the simulated downburst. Eq. (1) shows the conversion of the mean static pressures at each jet location (X =D) to coefcient form with respect to the mean dynamic pressure of the jet at the reference location. Ambient pressure in the laboratory away from the jet (PATMOS ) provided the reference pressure for the transducers CP PSTATIC PATMOS
1 2 2 rVref

Fig. 13 shows the variation of static pressure beneath the wall jet as a function of distance from stagnation. The stationary jet produced a high-pressure region between 0pX =Dp0:25 approximately equal to the stagnation pressure at the outlet. This region represented the mesohigh of a downburst. The pressure coefcient at stagnation exceeded 1 as the jet produced a slightly non-uniform velocity prole over the cross-section of the outlet, increasing slightly in magnitude away from the center of the outlet, where the reference velocity was measured (Fig. 5). As the jet was positioned further from X =D 0:5 the static pressure showed a sharp decrease and quickly approached atmospheric pressure at X =D 1:5: The stationary jet did not create a negative static pressure region, as indicated by Fujita [7] in Fig. 2. This is because in this quasi-steady simulation, there are no transient ring vortices formed

1.2

0.8

0.6 Cp 0.4 0.2 0 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

-0.2
X/D

Fig. 13. The mean static pressure eld of the stationary jet.

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

725

by the downdraft and which subsequently interact with the ground as suggested by Fujita [7]. This will be discussed in detail in Part B of this paper, which deals with the moving jet.

5. Results 5.1. Stationary jet pressure tests Pressures were measured over the cube for two orientations (01 and 451), with the jet located in the range 0pX =Dp3: Only 01 results are discussed in this paper. Eq. (2) indicates the conversion of mean surface pressures to coefcient form, with the ambient pressure in the laboratory away from the jet providing the reference pressure (PATMOS ) and the mean dynamic pressure from the pitot-static tube at the reference location CPJ P PATMOS
1 2 2 rVref

Fig. 14 shows the variation of the mean pressure coefcient along the cube centerline as a function of jet position for wind perpendicular to one face (01). At the

1.5

0.5

Cpj

-0.5
1

-1
0

X/D=0.0 X/D=1.0 X/D=2.0

X/D=0.5 X/D=1.25 X/D=3.0

X/D=0.75 X/D=1.5

-1.5
0 1 2 Position
Fig. 14. Mean pressure coefcients observed along the centerline of the cube.

726

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

stagnation position, X =D 0; the jet produced pressure coefcients slightly higher than 1 at all locations on the model. These are larger than 1 for the same reason that the surface static pressure was larger than 1 at stagnation, as discussed in Section 4.4 above. Loading under these conditions would be particularly relevant to sealed structures, where the internal pressure would remain at pre-downburst atmospheric pressure as represented by PATMOS in Eq. (2). As the jet is positioned further from the model, the inuence of the jet stagnation pressure wanes while the effect of airow becomes apparent with negative pressure coefcients developing in separated ow regions on the roof and lee wall for X =D > 0:75: The mean pressure coefcient prole X =D 0:5 reects the action of wind ow over the model, although the mean pressures on the faces of the cube are still positive. The mean pressure coefcient along the cube centerline showed very little variation over the windward face for most positions of the jet, while there was a gradual decrease in magnitude across the roof. The jet produced the greatest magnitude mean suction pressures when positioned in the range 1pX =Dp1:25; with the dominant component due to wind ow as the static pressure becomes very small. The magnitude of the mean pressures decreased considerably as the jet moved beyond X =D 1:5: 5.2. Comparison of mean pressure coefcients with earlier studies To facilitate comparison with earlier traditional wind tunnel studies, a rooftop or eaves height pressure coefcient was dened by Eq. (3). Here, use is made of the ratio of mean velocities between the reference velocity location and that at eaves height at X =D 1 to convert the coefcients dened earlier by Eq. (2). The X =D 1 location was chosen because it is where the velocities and pressures were largest, and therefore constitutes a design case CPE P PATMOS
1 2 2 rVEAVES;X =D1

Fig. 15 presents a comparison between these pressure coefcients and Castro and Robins study [14] in uniform and turbulent boundary layer ows. The present centerline pressure coefcients bear closer resemblance to the uniform ow results, although they show slightly greater variation across the roof. On the front face the wall jet produces signicantly higher positive pressures than measured by Castro and Robins for both their ow types. This apparent increase is due to the eaves height velocity being only some 90% of velocities at lower heights over the cube, as indicated in Fig. 9. . Castro and Robins [14] and Holscher and Niemann [16] identify turbulence intensity differences as a signicant factor with respect to the pressure distribution over the roof of a cube and this could also have contributed to the variations observed here. At X =D 1; the stationary jet produced an approximately uniform

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732
1.5

727

X/D=0.75
1

X/D=1.0 X/D=1.25

0.5

Castro and Robins, Uniform Flow Castro and Robins, Boundary Layer Flow

Cpe

-0.5
1

-1
0

-1.5
0 1 Position 2 3

Fig. 15. Comparison of centerline pressure coefcients of the stationary jet with earlier studies.

velocity prole with a 20% turbulence intensity at eaves height, compared to o0.5% in the uniform ow of Castro and Robins. Contrastingly, the eaves height turbulence intensity for Castro and Robins boundary layer ow was B27%, indicating that the mean ow type plays a very signicant role in the surface pressure distribution. 5.3. Effect of the static pressure eld The effect of the static pressure eld produced by the wall jet on building pressures was examined by dening new pressure coefcients as indicated in Eq. (4), in which the raised static pressure of the wall jet (Fig. 13) is removed from the building pressures. Once again the mean eaves height dynamic pressure at X =D 1 was used CPS P PSTATIC;X =D
1 2 2 rVEAVES;X =D1

Permeable structures, in which the internal pressure can quickly equilibrate to changes in atmospheric pressure, would likely experience the pressures dened by this coefcient. Fig. 16 shows these new pressure coefcients and it is seen that a signicant reduction in the pressures generated on the cube at locations close to the center of the jet occurs. However, removal of the raised static pressure of the wall jet caused little

728
1.5

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

X/D=0.0 1 X/D=1.0 X/D=2.0 0.5

X/D=0.5 X/D=1.25 X/D=3.0

X/D=0.75 X/D=1.5

Cps

-0.5
1

-1
0

-1.5
0 1 Position 2 3

Fig. 16. Centerline pressures on the cube for 01 orientation, referenced against the static pressure of the diverging ow and expressed as a ratio of the eaves height dynamic pressure at X =D 1:

change for pressure coefcients in the range 0:875pX =Dp1:25; which corresponds to the largest pressures/suctions under the action of the simulated downburst. Cassar [23], using a trial wall jet at CSIRO [9], undertook the only other study of pressures on a building model immersed in a wall jet known to the authors. This jet had an octagonal outlet of E1.5 m 0.85 m, with an effective diameter (D) of 1.05 m. Flow from the jet impinged on a smooth particleboard located 1.4 m away from the outlet (Zj =D 1:33). Fig. 17 shows a comparison of the mean wind velocity proles at X =DB1 created by the jet used in the current study and the CSIRO jet. The velocities have been non-dimensionalized by the maximum velocity in the prole (12.7 m/s for CSIRO) while the heights have been non-dimensionalized by cube height, which was 100 mm for the CSIRO study. Clearly, the CSIRO model was relatively larger with the top of that cube extending into the shear layer region above the wall jet. Fig. 18 compares the centerline pressure coefcients over the cube for these two studies. The coefcients are dened by Eq. (4), excepting that for the present studys X =D 0:75 position, the eaves height dynamic pressure at X =D 0:75 has been used to ensure compatibility with Cassars pressure coefcient denition. The shape of the mean pressure proles is similar, with good agreement on the front face for the X =D 0:75 case, however, Cassars suction pressures are all much lower in magnitude. It is likely that the differences in velocity prole in relation to the cube

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732
4.5 Chay 4 Cassar (CSIRO Jet) 3.5 3 2.5 Z/H 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 V/Vmax 0.8 1

729

1.2

Fig. 17. Comparison of mean velocity proles at X =D 1 for the TTU Moving Jet Wind Tunnel and CSIRO wall jet (Cube height=H).

1.5 Cassar (CSIRO Jet), X/D = 1.0 1 Chay, X/D = 1.0 Chay, X/D = 0.75 0.5 Cps

-0.5
1

-1
0

-1.5
0 1 Position 2 3

Fig. 18. Comparison of centerline pressure coefcient proles created by the TTU Moving Jet Wind Tunnel and the CSIRO wall jet on a model cube.

730

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

height (Fig. 17), i.e., a cube three times larger in a ow nominally only twice as big, are responsible. In addition, the ambiguity in dening a representative static reference pressure for this type of ow could also explain the observed differences.

6. Discussion This paper reports a study of mean pressures generated over a cube in a simulated thunderstorm downburst ow. A stationary wall jet was employed for this quasisteady downburst simulation. Wall jets have been shown to have similar mean velocity characteristics of reported full-scale downbursts, in particular, the variation of velocity with height above the ground which leads to a velocity maximum at some 50100 m at distances about 1 jet diameter from the stagnation point of the jet. The geometric scale of this simulation was estimated to be 1:3000. The velocity proles produced by this simulation have been shown to relate to earlier studies and it has been shown that wall jet velocities close to stagnation are a function of separation distance between the jet outlet and the wall. The maximum mean velocity occurred at a distance of 1 jet diameter from the stagnation point and produced a nearly constant velocity distribution over the height of the cube. Turbulence intensities at this location were E20%. As expected the static surface pressure distribution over the wall produced by the jet varied signicantly from maximum at stagnation to background atmospheric at a radius of about 1.5 jet diameters. Pressures generated over the cube could be divided into three regions based on location from jet stagnation (X =D 0):
* *

Directly beneath the jet when almost all pressure is due to the static pressure eld. A transition region where pressures are due to both the static pressure eld and diverging wall jet ow X =DB0:5: A region in which almost all pressure experienced by the cube is due to the diverging ow of the wall jet X =D > 0:75

Comparing the pressure distributions over the cube with conventional wind tunnel studies in both uniform and boundary layer ows indicated a greater likeness with uniform ow tests in the region of highest magnitude pressure around X =D 1: This was attributed to the similarity of mean velocity proles over the height of the cube in this region. However, the signicantly greater turbulence in the wall jet lead to greater variation in separated ow regimes as might be expected given the importance of turbulence in separating shear layers and their subsequent reattachment. In addition, the windward pressures were signicantly greater in the wall jet, due to the inverted velocity prole that decreased slightly with height. Further away from jet stagnation, X =D > 1:5; boundary layer development of the diverging wall jet ow occurs and consequently the pressures become more like those of conventional boundary layer tests. However, these regions experience much lower velocities and consequently pressures and are thus not considered signicant from a wind load design perspective.

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

731

This study has shown that mean pressure distributions on objects immersed in wall jets differ from those in conventional wind tunnel studies, however, as a realistic representation of wind pressures generated by thunderstorm downbursts, there remains considerable debate, not the least because the full-scale storms have signicantly different kinematic structure compared to the quasi-steady wall jet simulation. Part B of this paper attempts to address these issues by describing results from the moving jet simulation, which successfully captured many of the characteristics of full-scale downbursts, including the transient gust front.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge support from the Wind Science and Engineering Research Center and a Seed Grant for Multidisciplinary Research from Texas Tech University.

References
[1] AS1170.2-1989, Australian standardminimum design loads on structuresPart 2: wind loads, Standards Australia, Homebush, 1989. [2] ASCE 7-98, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, 1998. [3] ISO4354, Wind actions on structures, International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997. [4] J.D. Holmes, Modelling of extreme thunderstorm winds for wind loading of structures and risk assessment, Wind Engineering into the 21st Century: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Vol. 2. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1999, pp. 14091416. [5] C.W. Letchford, C. Mans, M.T. Chay, Thunderstormstheir importance in Wind Engineering, a case for the next generation wind tunnel, JAWE J. Wind Eng. 89 (2001) 3143. [6] T.T. Fujita, Andrews AFB Microburst, SMRP Research Paper 205, University of Chicago, 1983, 38pp. [7] T.T. Fujita, Downburst: Microburst And Macroburst, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1985, 122pp. [8] M.R. Hjelmfelt, Structure and life cycle of microburst outows observed in Colorado, J. Meteorol. 27 (1988) 900927. [9] J.W. Wilson, R.D. Roberts, C. Kessinger, J. McCarty, Microburst wind structure and evaluation of Doppler radar for airport wind shear detection, J. Climate Appl. Meteorol. 23 (1984) 898915. [10] J.D. Holmes, Physical modelling of thunderstorm downdrafts by wind tunnel jet, Second AWES Workshop, Monash University, 2122 February 1992, pp. 2932. [11] G.S. Wood, K.C.S. Kwok, N.A. Motteram, D.F. Fletcher, Physical and numerical modeling of thunderstorm downbursts, Wind Engineering into the 21st Century: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Vol. 3, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1999, pp. 19191924. [12] C.W. Letchford, G. Illidge, Turbulence and topographic effects in simulated thunderstorm downdrafts by wind tunnel jet, Wind Engineering into the 21st Century: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 3, 1999, pp. 19071918. [13] W.D. Baines, Effects of velocity distribution on wind loads and ow patterns on a building, Proceedings, Symposium No. 16, Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures, England, 1963. [14] I.P. Castro, A.G. Robins, The ow around a surface-mounted cube in uniform and turbulent streams, J. Fluid Mech. 79 (2) (1977) 307335.

732

M.T. Chay, C.W. Letchford / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 711732

[15] A. Hunt, Wind-tunnel measurements of surface pressures on cubic building models at several scales, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 10 (1982) 137163. . [16] N. Holscher, H.-J. Niemann, Towards quality assurance for wind tunnel tests: a comparative testing program of the Windtechnologische Gesellschaft, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 599608. [17] S. Murakami, A. Mochida, 3-D numerical simulation of airow around a cubic model by means of the ke model, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 31 (1988) 283303. [18] D.A. Paterson, C.J. Apelt, Simulation of ow past a cube in a turbulent boundary layer, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 35 (1990) 149176. [19] Y. Ogawa, S. Oikawa, K. Uehara, Field and wind tunnel studies of the ow and diffusion around a model cube1. Flow measurements, Atmos. Environ. 17 (6) (1983) 11451159. [20] P. Richards, R.P. Hoxey, L.J. Short, Wind pressures on a 6 m cube, Volume of Abstracts: Fourth International Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and Applications, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany, 2000, pp. 515518. [21] C.W. Letchford, C. Mans, Translational effects in modeling thunderstorm downbursts, Volume of Abstracts: Fourth International Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and Applications, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany, 2000, pp. 153156. [22] M.T. Chay, Simulation of thunderstorm downbursts, MSCE Thesis, Texas Tech University, 2001. [23] R.J. Cassar, Simulation of thunderstorm downdraft by a wind tunnel jet, Summer Vacation Project, CSIRO Australia, 1992, 44pp. [24] C.W. Letchford, M.T. Chay, Pressure distributions on a cube in a simulated thunderstorm downburstPart B: moving downburst observations, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 737.