Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 45 (1992) 25 45 25

Elsevier

W i n d l o a d s o n p l a n a r c a n o p y r o o f s - P a r t 1:
Mean pressure distributions

C.W. L e t c h f o r d and J.D. Ginger

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld. 4072, Australia

(Received October 10, 1991; revised version accepted December 20, 1991)

Summary

Mean pressure distributions on planar canopy roofs are presented based on 1:100 scale
wind tunnel measurements obtained in a simulated suburban atmospheric boundary layer.
For a range of roof pitch angles and wind directions, point and area-averaged pressure
measurements were obtained with the worst loads experienced adjacent to lines of flow
separation. In this study, generally smaller wake or suction mean pressures were obtained
when compared with the earlier studies of Gumley. These differences are attributed to the
interference at separation by the canopy supports in Gumley's work, and the higher level of
turbulence in the present study.

1. I n t r o d u c t i o n

The roofs of low rise buildings typically experience the most d a m a g e d u r i n g

wind storms. This is because they are the most exposed part of such buildings
and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , experience the g r e a t e s t wind loads. The largest suctions are
experienced close to edge discontinuities in regions of flow separation, and
r o o f failures o r i g i n a t e in these regions. W h e r e a s a significant a m o u n t of
research, both at model and full scale, has been u n d e r t a k e n to determine the
wind loads on the roofs of enclosed buildings, this is not the case for open or
c a n o p y roofs.
Open, shelter or c a n o p y r o o f s t r u c t u r e s are used in m a n y parts of the world,
where expansive s h a d e or r a i n p r o o f areas are required. These roofs v a r y from
the t r a d i t i o n a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d aircraft, bus and r a i l w a y station, and produce
m a r k e t shelters, to the more modern, lightweight, tension m e m b r a n e struc-
tures. The former are g e n e r a l l y p l a n a r in form while the latter are by necessity
curvilinear. A d v a n c e s in the types of materials being used and i n n o v a t i o n s in
s t r u c t u r a l design have resulted in the c o n s t r u c t i o n of l a r g e r span, lighter

Correspondence to: Dr. C.W. Letchford, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

Queensland, Brisbane, Qld. 4072, Australia.

016%6105/92/$05.00 :c 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

26 C~W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy rool:~

weight, and consequently more flexible roofs which can be wind sensitive.
Hence, there is a growing need for more detailed knowledge of the wind
loading on these structures.
This paper and a companion paper [1] seek to add to the relatively small
database of wind loads on planar canopy roofs by summarising the results
of an extensive wind tunnel investigation carried out at the University of
Queensland [2]. This paper describes the experimental arrangement and pres-
ents the mean pressure results. The companion paper presents and discusses
the measured fluctuating and peak pressure distributions and their correla-
tions. The following Section reviews wind loading investigations on canopy
roofs. The experimental arrangement for the present investigation is described
in Section 3. The results of this study together with comparisons with previous
work and code values are presented in Section 4. The conclusions are pres-
ented in Section 5.

2. W i n d l o a d o n c a n o p y r o o f s

Newberry and Eaton [3], in discussing the codification of wind loads for the
1972 British Standard [4], report t h a t for canopy roofs there were surprising
inconsistencies in the available literature. They concluded t h a t these probably
reflected differences in test conditions as well as variations in the roof and
height aspect ratios. The most detailed tests on canopy roofs at that time were
those of Jensen and Franck [5] conducted in the early 1960s.
Gumley and Wood [6], and Gumley [7,8] undertook probably the most compre-
hensive study of the wind loading of free standing canopy roofs in atmospheric
boundary layer flow. Gumley and Wood [6] conducted wind tunnel model tests
of a full scale canopy roof on which pressure measurements were being ob-
tained by Robertson et al. [10]. Gumley [7,8] went on to conduct a systematic
study of these structures. A very extensive parametric study investigating the
influence of roof pitch, wind direction, aspect ratio, eaves height, and internal
stacking arrangement was undertaken. The specific structures modelled were
typical of those used in the agricultural industry in England.
Gumley employed, at a length scale of I : 75 in a simulated rural (Zo = 0.03 m)
atmospheric boundary layer, a variable pitch, planar, 20 x 20 m canopy roof
standing on eight square sectioned legs located evenly along the eaves. Each
half of the roof was divided into five sections: four strip regions close to the
edges and ridge line, and a central region. Only area-averaged pressures over
these separate regions were measured. The results of his study were used
to update pressure coefficients on such structures in the British [4] and
Australian [9] wind loading codes.
Full scale measurements of wind loads on two agricultural canopy roof
structures were reported by Robertson et al. [10]. These structures had a width
to span ratio of approximately two and, thus, differed from the basic canopy
studied by Gumley (width to span of one). Proposals for design based on these
 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs 27

full scale measurements differed from those proposals [11] based on the wind
tunnel tests of Gumley, in particular for the case of no blockage under the
canopy roof. The spatial extent of downward pressures on the windward half
and the magnitude of uplift pressures on the leeward half of the roof were
disputed, with the wind tunnel based proposals leading to a particularly
onerous design case for net drag on the canopy roof. These differences were
probably due to different philosophies adopted during the codification process
because reasonably good agreement is found between full scale [9] and model
scale [6] mean pressure differences across the roof centreline for a wind normal
to the ridge as shown in Fig. 1.
In their study, Gumley and Wood [6] obtained a detailed point pressure
distribution over the roof for the one pitch angle (15 ~) corresponding to the full
scale canopy roof. The subsequent studies by Gumley [7,8] involved only
area-averaged measurements, and the nature and extent of the flow mechan-
isms over the roof were not investigated further. Furthermore, the correlation
of fluctuating pressures on various sections of the roof were not obtained. This
is the data necessary for determining the overall wind load on the structure
and with this data it would be possible to obtain more realistic design load
cases. The investigation undertaken at the University of Queensland [2] was
specifically aimed at covering these areas.
In passing, various configurations of partially open or grandstand roofs have
been studied in the wind tunnel by amongst others Barnard [12], Cook [13], and
Melbourne and Cheung [14]. Apperly and Pitsis [15] have made comparisons

centreline pressure distribution

0.~ ..m ..........................................................................

~A

0 . . . . :: Q . . . . . .
&

-0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A c~

1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . .
&

0:1 0:2 0 : 3 ~ 4 0:5 d6 0:7 0'.8 -019

x/L

A Silsoe[10] Drayton [10] • Oxford 1:7516] I

Fig. 1. Full scale/model scale c o m p a r i s o n s of m e a n pressure differences across roof

c e n t e r l i n e for a wind normal to the canopy ridge. Full scale canopy roofs at Silsoe and
Drayton [10].
28 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs

between model and full scale pressure measurements on the Belmore Oval
grandstand in Sydney. While J a n c a u s k a s and Holmes [16] studied wind loads
on attached canopies.

3. Experimental arrangement

The boundary layer wind tunnel in the Department of Civil Engineering at

the University of Queensland was used in this study. The wind tunnel is of the
recirculating type with a working section of 3 m wide × 2 m high and a length of
12 m over which the boundary layer development takes place.
A PC controlled data acquisition system [17] which employed 'BURR
BROWN' PCI-20000 hardware and software application programs was used in
this study. This system has the capability of high speed four channel simulta-
neous sample and hold data acquisition. Spectral information was obtained
using a Bruel and Kjaer 2034 spectrum analyzer.
A partial depth atmospheric boundary layer simulation at a scale of l : 100
was achieved using a fence/grid combination as an initial momentum sink.
Followup surface roughness blocks and cups were used to generate the re-
quired turbulence. The mean velocity profile and turbulence intensity profile
for the simulation are shown in Fig. 2, with the target values for a suburban
t e r r a i n category of z0 = 0.2 m. The model longitudinal turbulence length scale
(XLu) at a height of 300 mm was 300 mm [2]. This is approximately one third of
the suggested full scale value for this type of terrain, but it is still larger than
the largest panel dimension employed in this study. Stathopoulos and Surry
[18] have shown t hat a turbulence length scale relaxation of approximately
two leads to only small errors in the measured pressures. The mean wind
tunnel speed at 100 mm was approximately 9 m/s which resulted in a velocity
scale of 1/2 for a strong wind event. Thus, the time scale was approximately
1/50.

100 •j 100 •I
------ Theoretical
l ,I Experimental
80 •I Theoretical 80
I
,I •I
I Experimental
A 6O a/ ~60
vE ,f
I E
"I
v o~
N I
4O N40
I
t
20
{ 20 %.
g
/
0 l I 0--- [ I '%%1~--I I
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
015~om ouIU
Fig. 2. Mean velocity and turbulence intensity profiles.
 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs 29

The model canopy roof used in this study was similar to that used by Gumley
[7,8], except th at a modular arrangement of panels was employed. A single
interchangeable panel with closely spaced pressure taps was employed for the
detailed pressure distribution investigation. Care was taken to ensure that
panel edges were sealed to prevent leakage flow between top and bottom
surfaces. The other main difference was the placement of the supporting legs
inboard of the eaves in an effort to reduce interference at the separation lines.
A 7 mm thick, 300 x 300 mm rigid canopy roof model as shown in Fig. 3 was
constructed. The model consisted of two halves hinged along the ridge line to
allow for variable pitch. Each half was divided into three 100 x 150 mm sections
each supported by a 12 mm square hollow leg. The six 150 x 100 mm sections
were identified as A to F and the 0 ~ wind orientation was with the flow
perpendicular to the ridge line.
The tapping distribution for the area-averaged pressure measurements is
shown in Fig. 4, while the interchangeable panel employed for the detailed
pressure study is shown in Fig. 5. Tappings locations were identical on top and
bottom surfaces so that net pressure differences could be obtained. Flexible
1.5 mm diameter PVC tubes from the pressure tappings were passed through
the hollow legs via 48 port Scanivalve Corporation type D pressure switches to
Honeywell 163PC pressure transducers fixed under the turntable. Both single
and manifolded tubing networks were employed.
The frequency response of the two tubing systems, one for measuring the
pressure at a single tapping and the other for measuring the area-averaged

300

LI I

tx

Fig. 3. Variable pitch canopy roof model (dimensions in mm).

 30 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs

Ridge line

I
I
I

Jc_

Fig. 4. Pressure tapping locations on 150 ×100 mm regular panel.

• ~ ,~ 3s .... 2~ ~.25 ,

X X X X X X
T--
i.o
X X X X

x ~2~
!
x [-~,2 .,dge .he

All dimensions in ram.

Fig. 5. Pressure tapping locations on 150 ×100 mm interchange panel.

pressure of up to six tappings, are s h o w n in Figs. 6 and 7. Good response is

o b t a i n e d up to 100 Hz, at which the t r a n s d u c e r signals were low passed filtered
p r i o r to a n a l o g differencing and t h e n digitization. T h e signals were sampled at
250 Hz for 60 s ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y one h o u r full scale). This is a v e r y similar
m e a s u r e m e n t setup to t h a t employed by Gumley,
L e t c h f o r d et al. [19] d r a w i n g on f r e q u e n c y response i n v e s t i g a t i o n s at b o t h
model and full scale h a v e suggested t h a t the a t t e n u a t i o n of m e a n peak point
pressures can be limited to less t h a n 5% if V / n c B < 0.2, w h e r e V is the
r e f e r e n c e velocity, nc the cutoff frequency, and B a building plan dimension.
Here, V / n c B = 9 / ( l O 0 ×0.3)=0.3, which suggests limited a t t e n u a t i o n of peak
 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs 31

550

~ 0 . 3 ~b reatrlctor
16 Pressure 360
t .... ducer ~65 L -Scanivalv.
14

1.2 4~ . • 270
o &
to
¢i
0.8 o
180 <=
• &
-=
a 06
E
< 0.
04 90 ,
• &
02
J I L [ I 0
50 100 150 200 250 300
Frequency, Hz

Fig. 6. F r e q u e n c y response of single i n p u t pressure m e a s u r i n g system.

Manifold

--LJ- ~ 0.3 ~b restriotor

Pressure . - ~ ~'~Ld= Scanivalve
transducer
16 ~ssI ~ 360
14

o 12 • 2 7 0 o~
@
• "1o
~ 1.0
~ 0.8 e• 1 8 0 ==

"6O.6
E o
< 0.4
0.2
I I I 1 i 0
5o 100 150 200 250 300
Frequency, Hz
Fig. 7. F r e q u e n c y response of six i n p u t pressure m e a s u r i n g system.

point p r e s s u r e s w i t h e v e n less e x p e c t e d for s p a t i a l l y filtered a r e a a v e r a g e d

pressures.
The m e a n , s t a n d a r d deviation, m a x i m u m , and m i n i m u m p r e s s u r e difference
coefficients w e r e obtained. P o s i t i v e p r e s s u r e difference is defined as down-
wards. The r e f e r e n c e d y n a m i c p r e s s u r e d u r i n g e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n was o b t a i n e d
from a p i t o t - s t a t i c t u b e located at c a n o p y leg h e i g h t (h), a w a y from the
influence of the model. In p r e s e n t a t i o n , all a r e a - a v e r a g e d p r e s s u r e coefficients
h a v e been c o r r e c t e d for a d y n a m i c p r e s s u r e based at e a v e s height. This facilit-
ates direct c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r data.
T h r e e series of tests on the r o o f model were u n d e r t a k e n . The first d e t e r m i n e d
the detailed p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o v e r the r o o f for h e i g h t (h) of 100 ram, r o o f
32 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs

pitch angles (~) of 0 '~, 5', 10 ~, 15 '~, 22.5:, and 3 0 for wind d i r e c t i o n s (fl) in steps of
30". The second set of tests d e t e r m i n e d the a r e a - a v e r a g e d pressure on each of
the six r o o f panels (A to F). Tests were carried out on c a n o p y ' s at heights (h) of
75 mm, 100 mm, and 125 mm and r o o f pitch angles (~) of if, 5 °, 10 ~', 15 '~, 22.5, and
30 '~ for wind d i r e c t i o n s (fl) in steps of 10 °. The final set of tests d e t e r m i n e d the
a r e a - a v e r a g e d pressures on smaller areas a d j a c e n t to the r o o f edges and ridge.

4. R e s u l t s

4.1. Point pressure study

T h e c o n t o u r plots of the m e a n pressure difference coefficients for r o o f pitch
angles (~) of 15 ° and 22.5 °, and angles of a t t a c k (fl) of 0 °, 30 °, 60 °, and 90 ° are
given in Figs. 8 and 9. The c a n o p y h e i g h t (h) was 100 mm. F o r fl = 0 '~ and 90 ~ the
pressures were a v e r a g e d a b o u t the line of symmetry. Detailed pressure distri-
b u t i o n s for the o t h e r pitch angles i n v e s t i g a t e d are p r e s e n t e d in Ref. [2]. Ten
r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e m e n t s of a typical point pressure difference gave a s t a n d a r d
e r r o r of 1.8% for the mean.
F o r f l = 0 c', the flow s e p a r a t e s at the leading edge and ridge line and reat-
t a c h e s d o w n s t r e a m r e s u l t i n g in s e p a r a t i o n bubbles. S e p a r a t i o n bubbles are
u n s t a b l e because the v o r t i c i t y diffused into the flow t h r o u g h the s e p a r a t i n g
s h e a r l a y e r a c c u m u l a t e s and i n t e r m i t t e n t l y rolls up into discrete vortices

c( = 1 5 °

?
i -~= 0 o
Fig. 8. Mean pressure difference coefficient contours (~= 15°, fl=0 °, 30°, 60°, 90°).
 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs 33

~=15 °

-~' ; J ~ \ /',/U (b)

2'7 !;
~='~30 o

0~=15 °

(c/

//k/ /-

~n:6o °
Fig. 8. Continued.
34 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs

6=15 °

(d)

:>..__J

_J

j ~ J ~
I

~=90 °

Fig. 8. Continued.

o~ = 2 2 . 5 °

(a)

o o,

-13= 0 °
Fig. 9. Mean pressure difference coefficient contours (u=22.5:, fi=ff~, 3if, 6@', 9@).
©

HI J v ~ - ~ ~ ..... ~2....~--~

=J
II
0 - -
% o
36 C. W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs

=22.5 °

% o

i= 90 °

Fig. 9. Continued.

which are carried away by the freestream. This process produces a fluctuating
reattachment point and leads to high suction pressures beneath the separation
bubble [20].
As the angle of attack is changed from 0 °, a mean velocity component in the
direction of the edge discontinuity arises, enabling the vorticity diffused from
the separating shear layer to be convected away along its axis. The balance
between the vorticity diffused and convected leads to the formation of a stable
flow mechanism, namely the conical vortex [2]. The largest suction pressures
are generated under the core of the vortex. Within the conical vortex the flow
spirals, as evidenced by flow visualization and surface oil flow patterns, with
the spiral angle increasing as the angle of attack increases. This is because the
velocity component in the direction of the edge discontinuity increases with
increasing angle of attack.
The regions influenced by the formation of the separation bubbles and
conical vortices on the bottom surface of the windward half and the top surface
of the leeward half can be identified in the contour plots for fl = 0 °, 30 °, and 60 °.
The largest pressures are experienced close to the inclined edges at an attack
angle of 30° . The pressure distribution caused by the interference of the
supports can also be identified in the contour plots. For fl = 90 °, the canopy is
effectively a flat plate and sensibily would experience negligible net pressure
difference.
 C. W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs 37

K n o w l e d g e of the detailed s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s allows identifica-

tion of the s h a r p e s t p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s and, thus, gives a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g
of the a r e a of influence of the a s s o c i a t e d flow m e c h a n i s m , be it s e p a r a t i o n
bubble or conical vortex.

4.2. Area-averaged p r e s s u r e s
The v a r i a t i o n of m e a n a r e a - a v e r a g e d p r e s s u r e difference coefficients with
wind d i r e c t i o n on the six r o o f panels (A to F) for the v a r i o u s r o o f pitches is
s u m m a r i s e d for two cases: a c o r n e r r o o f p a n e l (F) and a middle r o o f p a n e l (E)
in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. Ten r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e m e n t s of a c o r n e r p a n e l
p r e s s u r e difference g a v e a s t a n d a r d e r r o r of 5% for the mean.
As expected, for the c o r n e r r o o f p a n e l (Fig. 10) the l a r g e s t positive and
n e g a t i v e p r e s s u r e s o c c u r for the h i g h e s t r o o f pitches. Indeed, for r o o f pitches
below 15 ~ the s e p a r a t i o n bubble and the conical v o r t i c e s are small in s p a t i a l
e x t e n t with m o s t of the p a n e l e x p e r i e n c i n g r e a t t a c h e d flow. This is evidenced
in the p o i n t p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s of Figs. 8 and 9. M u c h the s a m e observa-
tions a p p l y for the middle r o o f p a n e l (Fig. 11) with only the m a g n i t u d e s of the
m e a n p r e s s u r e s reduced s o m e w h a t . In e a c h case the m e a n p r e s s u r e difference
for a n a n g l e of a t t a c k of 9 0 , i.e. p a r a l l e l to the ridge line, is p r a c t i c a l l y zero. No
c o m p a r i s o n s w i t h the r e s u l t s of G u m l e y [7,8] c a n be m a d e at this s t a g e b e c a u s e
of the choice of different panel areas.
An effort to q u a n t i f y the discrete a p p r o x i m a t i o n e r r o r in the a r e a - a v e r a g e d
m e a s u r e m e n t s h a s been m a d e by c o m p a r i n g p a n e l p r e s s u r e s w i t h those
o b t a i n e d by i n t e g r a t i n g p o i n t p r e s s u r e distributions. F i g u r e 12 p r e s e n t s this
c o m p a r i s o n for a c o r n e r p a n e l (F) for two r o o f pitches (15 and 22.5") and for

corner panel
1

o0.8 . . . i
. . . . ~
. . . . . . . . . . . . ii
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . ..

o.°4 ...................................
........ !i

('~ 0.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-0.4-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-0.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-1.2 3'0 6'0 9'0 120 150 1~}0 2i0 2,~0 270 300 330 360
angle of attack

[ -~- pitch= 5 -4'- pitch= 10 ~

pitch = 22.5 ~ pitch= 30
pitch= 15

Fig. 10. Mean area averaged pressure difference coefficients on a roof corner panel (F).
38 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs

middle panel
1 ,

0"8 I
o6!
0.4!
0.2-..
o_ oI~
0 -0.2- -
-0.4 -
-0.6
-0.8- •
-1-
-1,2
0 3o -~o 95.... 1~o ...........~so~- ~o
angle of attack

-"-- pitch = 5 " pitch = 10 ~ pitch = 15

pitch = 2 2 . 5 w pitch = 3 0

Fig. 11. M e a n a r e a a v e r a g e d p r e s s u r e difference coefficients on a roof middle p a n e l (E).

corner panel
1
0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0,6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.4 -"-'--~=. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-0.2 .......................... "-",~-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-0.4
-0.6
-0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~= ......... ,

-1 ............................................................................................. !

-1.2
0 3'0 do 90 120 i 50 i so
angle of attack

I -m- 15, point -e~ 15, area --N-- 22.5, point -~- 22.5, area ]

Fig. 12. C o m p a r i s o n of m e a n a r e a - a v e r a g e d a n d i n t e g r a t e d p o i n t p r e s s u r e m e a s u r e m e n t s for

a roof c o r n e r p a n e l (F) for u = 15" a n d 22.5':.

angles of a t t a c k of 0 c~to 180% As can be seen, u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n of a p p r o x i m a t e l y

15% o c c u r s for the a r e a - a v e r a g e d p r e s s u r e differences for a t t a c k angles of 30 ° ,
150 °, and 180 °. The lack of pressure t a p p i n g s in the edge regions for the
panel m e a s u r e m e n t s is responsible. This was a c o n s t r a i n t imposed by space
 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs 39

limitations within the model. The u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n is g r e a t e s t for the c o r n e r

panel because of the r e l a t i v e significance of the conical vortices to the c o r n e r
pressure field. The a r e a - a v e r a g e d pressures on these edge regions, employing
a finer tapping grid, are p r e s e n t e d in Section 4.3.
The m e a n a r e a - a v e r a g e d pressure difference coefficients for a complete half
of the r o o f are p r e s e n t e d in Fig. 13. The v a r i a t i o n with angle of a t t a c k is almost
identical with t h a t for the middle roof panel shown in Fig. 11. Again t h e r e is
the significant increase in m a g n i t u d e of pressure difference as the r o o f pitch
changes from 15 ° to 22.5. This c h a n g e in pitch angle is sufficient to cause
a significant delay in r e a t t a c h m e n t of the flow, be it from s e p a r a t i o n bubble or
conical vortex, and is due to the increase in the a p p a r e n t angle of inclination of
the flow as it leaves the s e p a r a t i o n lines.
Comparisons with the results of Gumley [7] for the mean half r o o f pressure
difference coefficients at angles of a t t a c k (fl) of 0', 30:, 6 0 , and 9 0 are pres-
ented in Figs. 14 17, respectively. Each figure presents the v a r i a t i o n of Cp with
pitch angle (~), for a windward (W) and a leeward (L) half of the roof. The
significant difference between the present results and those of Gumley is the
smaller suction pressures (smaller by 0.2 of Cp) on the leeward h a l f of the roof
for all a t t a c k angles. T h e r e is also a slight r e d u c t i o n of pressure on the
windward h a l f of the roof for the lower pitch angles. It should be emphasised
t h a t because the results presented here are pressure differences the effects of
any r e f e r e n c e pressure disparities are irrelevant.
Of p a r t i c u l a r interest is Fig. 17 with an angle of a t t a c k of 9 0 . Here the flow
is parallel to the ridge and, thus, a m o u n t s to flow over a flat plate. For the

half roof
1-

0.8-
0.6!
0.4-E
0.2
o.. 0-'
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
-0.8.
-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-1.2
30 60 90 110 1.50 180
angle of attack

[~-pitch=5 : pitch=lO -~pitch=15

pitch 22.5 pitch = 30

Fig. 13. Mean area averaged pressure difference coefficients on a half roof.
40 C. W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs

angle of attack = 0
0.8
0.6

0.4"
0.2

ol ....... :-._ ...............................

--~'- -- - - - : 4,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-0.2;
-0.4-
-0.6.
-0.8"
-1- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

-1.2
-1'0 i5 2S ~5 30
roof pitch

I --"-- Half W --~- Half W- [7] ~ Half L - N - Half L- [7] I

Fig. 14. C o m p a r i s o n of m e a n h a l f roof p r e s s u r e difference coefficients,/?=0".

angle of attack = 30
0.8 ¸
0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

° 4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
0.2
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
ol
3 -o.2;
-0.4 . . . . . . . . . . . 4

-0.6.

-0.8
-1
-1.2

roof pitch

I - ~ , - HalfW -÷- Half W - [ 7 ] + HalfL - - N - Half L - [ 7 ] I

Fig. 15. C o m p a r i s o n of m e a n h a l f roof p r e s s u r e difference coefficients,/~= 3 0 .

present study, the mean half roof pressure difference coefficient is effectively
zero, whereas it is approximately - 0 . 1 for Gumley [7]. Gumley reasons this
negative offset to be due to the finite thickness of the model in a sheared
velocity flow, causing the top surface suctions to be larger by virtue of the
increased velocity over t ha t surface. This velocity increase is however very
small over a 7 mm thick plate.
 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs 41

angle of attack = 60
0.8-
0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.4 ......................................................................

02 ................ . ....... . ........ ............ .

..... I
-0.2) I---= =_ ..............................
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8-
-I i
i
-1.2 5 1'0 1'5 2'0 2'5 3~0
roof pitch

I -"- Half W 4"-- Half W- [7] - e - Half L - ~ - Half L- [7]

F i g . 16. C o m p a r i s o n of mean half roof pressure difference c o e f f i c i e n t s , fl = 6 0 .

angle of attack = 90

04 t
0,2 ..............................

0 ...... -- ............. -- ..... m ........ ~ ...... H

-0.2
~ -_-2 -222-_ -~2-22-_- . . . . . ~. . . . . . :::::::::::::::::::::::

0"4i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-0.6 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
roof pitch

HalfW-[7]-s-- HalfL ~ - HalfL-[7] i

I~ ' - HalfW -÷

F i g . 17. C o m p a r i s o n of mean half roof pressure difference coefficients, fl= 90

If Fig. 14 is e x a m i n e d for the zero pitch case, the flow a g a i n a m o u n t s to flow

o v e r a flat plate. The only difference b e t w e e n this case and those of Fig. 17 is
the p r e s e n c e of the r o o f supports. In G u m l e y ' s case t h e r e w e r e four legs at the
e a v e s edge and the m e a n p r e s s u r e difference coefficient is - 0 . 2 . In the p r e s e n t
s t u d y t h e r e were t h r e e legs set b a c k from the e a v e s edge and the m e a n p r e s s u r e
difference coefficient is a g a i n e s s e n t i a l l y zero. This is c o n s i s t e n t with the
o b s e r v a t i o n s of Fig. 17. The difference b e t w e e n G u m l e y ' s flat p l a t e flow of
42 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger~Wind loads on planar canopy roo[s

Figs. 14 and 17 must, therefore, be due to the presence of the supporting legs at
the eaves edge, i.e. the separation line. Of course, all canopies must have
supports, but the scale of the legs should be in proportion, and this was not the
case in either of these studies, although more significant in Gumley's.
The above discussion goes someway to explaining the difference between the
two data sets. It is believed t hat the remaining difference is substantially due
to the different boundary layer simulations that were employed in the studies.
Gumley's simulation was essentially t hat of a rural terrain, zo = 0.03 m, with
the turbulence intensity at eaves height being ~:20%. The present study was
for a rougher suburban terrain, zo = 0.2 m and ~ 25% turbulence intensity at
eaves height. The more t ur bul e nt flow is sure to lead to earlier r e a t t a c h m e n t
and, hence, smaller spatial extent of both separation bubble and conical
vortex. This implies that, especially for the leeward half roof, the present
study's pressure difference coefficients would be reduced in magnitude in
comparison with those of Gumley, which is indeed the case.

4.3. Area-averaged pressures on leading edge and ridge strips

The mean area-averaged pressure differences on leading edge and ridge
strips were obtained for a range of roof pitches ( ~ = 0 , 5 , 1 0 , 1 5 ~, 22.5, and 30'
with h = 100 mm) for an angle of attack of 30'. This angle of at t ack typically
produced the worst localised pressure differences. The location and dimensions
of the strips are shown in Fig. 18. The worst case mean pressure difference
coefficients for any particular edge or ridge strip are shown in Fig. 19. For the
edge strip, both worst positive and negative mean strip pressures are pres-
ented. When compared to the mean half roof pressure difference coefficients of
Fig. 13, these strip pressures are two, three, or more times greater.

4.4. Comparison with code data

One major application of the data collected in this study is to confirm values
presented in codes of practice (e.g. Refs. [4] and [9]). In each code the
quasi-steady theory for predicting wind loads is employed so t hat effectively

Edge
J

IO0
1%
L ,30
Fig. 18. Edge and ridge strip area-averaged pressure locations.
 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs 43

angle of attack = 30
2

1.5-

1
J
0.5
J
0...
© o::-2.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

_1 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -77:~=:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
roof pitch

- , , - edge zone maxima --~- edge zone minima - - * - ridge zone minima 1

Fig. 19. W o r s t c a s e m e a n , edge a n d r i d g e strip, p r e s s u r e d i f f e r e n c e coefficients for fl = 3 0 .

only mean pressure coefficients are required. However, where the quasi-steady
approach breaks down, i.e. in regions of separated flow or for large structures,
modifying factors are required. These factors account for localised effects
within separated flow regimes and the lack of spatial correlation of the gusts
(and/or pressures) over the structure.
Figure 20 compares the values presented in ASl170.2 [9] for the canopy roof
without blockage with the worst case mean half roof pressure difference
coefficients obtained from Fig. 13. The code values have been modified by an
area reduction factor K a=0.8, based on the full scale half roof area being
greater than 100 m 2. In regions of near zero mean pressure the quasi-steady
theory breaks down completely and alternative approaches are necessary.
Such approaches require the measurement of peak pressures and will be
considered in part 2 of this paper [1].

5. C o n c l u s i o n s

Mean pressure distributions on planar canopy roofs with no blockage be-

neath have been obtained from 1:100 scale wind tunnel measurements in
a simulated atmospheric boundary layer. When compared with the other
significant study of such structures, those of Gumley [7,8], these results indi-
cate less severe loading. This is particularly the case for the wake or suction
mean pressures over complete half roofs. This difference was partly due to the
interference at separation lines created by the canopy roof supports and by the
increase in turbulence in the present study.
44 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs

half roof
0.8.
0.6-
0.4-
0.2- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..>-:'+?: . . . . . i

O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

0 -0.2- ......... ~ : z S : . . . . . . . .
-0.4 + i
-0.6-
-0.8-
-1- IZZIZZIII;I;IZIII;;II;II iZi?i?iiiil!!!!!!!!!!!iiiiii I

-1.2 . . . . .

0 g 1'0 t'5 20 i5 30
roof pitch

-÷- HalfW -- HalfW-[9]-M-- HalfL -- HalfL-[9] ]

Fig. 20. Comparison of worst mean half roof pressure difference coefficients with values in
ASl170.2 [9] for a canopy roof with no blockage underneath.

Not surprisingly, comparisons with data in the Australian wind loading code
[9] revealed similar trends to those noted for the comparisons with Gumley's
[7,8] work. This is because the code was largely based on Gumley's w o r k and
must, by necessity, be conservative.
In part 2 of this paper [1], a more sophisticated approach to determining
realistic design loads, t hat of covariance integration incorporating the correla-
tion of fluctuating pressures over the complete roof structure, will be pres-
ented. With this data, re-evaluation of codified values for determining overall
uplift and drag on canopy roof structures can be made.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to t ha nk Messers. J o h n Cracknell and Reg King for

the m a n u f a c t u r e of the model and for assistance with the experimental ar-
rangement. The assistance of Mr. Reg Stonard in preparation of some of the
figures is gratefully acknowledged. Suggestions by one reviewer are also
acknowledged. This study was partially funded by an Australian Research
Council Gr an t and a University of Queensland Special Project Grant.

References

[1] C.W. Letchford and J.D. Ginger, Wind loads on planar canopy roofs-Part 2: Fluctuating
pressure distributions and correlations, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., (1992)to be published.
[2] J.D. Ginger and C.W. Letchford, Wind loads on canopy roofs, Research Report CE 132,
University of Queensland, 1991.
 C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger/Wind loads on planar canopy roofs 45

[3] C.W. Newberry and K.J. Eaton, Wind Loading Handbook, Department of Environment,
HMSO, London, 1974.
[4] Code of Practice CP3, Code of basic data for the design of buildings, 2, Wind loads,
British Standards Institution, London, 1972, Ch.V.
[5] M. Jensen and N. Franck, Model-scale tests in turbulent wind: Part 1. The Danish
Technical Press, 1963.
[6] S.J. Gumley and C.J. Wood, Mean and extreme pressure study on model dutch barns,
OUEL Report No. 1333/80, University of Oxford, 1980.
[7] S.J. Gumley, Panel loading mean pressure study for canopy roofs, OUEL Report No.
1380/81. University of Oxford, 1981.
[8] S.J. Gumley, Design extreme pressures A parametric study for canopy roofs, OUEL
Report No. 1394/82, University of Oxford, 1982.
[9] Australian Standard, SAA loading code Part 2: Wind loads ASl170.2, Standards
Australia, Sydney, 1989.
[10] A.P. Robertson, R.P. Hoxey and P. Moran, A full-scale study of wind loads on agricul-
tural ridged canopy roof structures and proposals for design, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aero-
dyn., 21 (1985) 167-205.
[11] Building Research Establishment Digest 284, Wind loads on canopy roofs, Building
Research Station, Garston, Warlord, UK, 1984.
[12] R.H. Barnard, Wind loads on cantilevered roof structures, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.,
8 (1981) 21 30.
[13] N.J. Cook, Reduction of wind loads on a grandstand roof, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 10
(1982) 373 380.
[14] W.H. Melbourne and J.C.K. Cheung, Reducing the wind load on large cantilevered
roofs, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 28 (1988) 401 410.
[15~ L.W. Apperly and N.J. Pitsis, Model/Fullscale measurements on a grandstand, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 23 (1986) 99 111.
[16] E.D. Jancauskas and J.D. Holmes, Wind loads on attached canopies, 5th US National
Conf. on Wind Eng., Lubbock Texas, November 1985.
[17] J.D. Ginger and C.W. Letchford, A computerized data acquisition system for the bound-
ary layer wind tunnel, Research Report CE 127, University of Queensland, 1990.
[18] T. Stathopoulos and D. Surry, Scale effects in wind tunnel testing of low buildings,
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 13 (1983) 313 326.
[19] C.W. Letchford, P. Sandri, M.L. Levitan and K.C. Mehta, Frequency response require-
ments for fluctuating wind pressure measurements, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 40 (1992)
263 276.
[201 P.J. Saathoff and W.H. Melbourne, The generation of peak pressures in separated/re-
attaching flows, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 32 (1989) 121 134.