4.7 Article

Wind load evaluation on storm shelters using wind tunnel testing and North American design codes

Journal

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Volume 254, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113821

Keywords

Wind engineering; Wind tunnel; Structural design codes; Wind shelters; Wind loads; Aerodynamics

Funding

  1. MITACS
  2. Four Chambers Safety Inc through the Accelerate Program
  3. Ryerson University
  4. National Sciences and Engineering Research Center NSERC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Due to climate change, the number of extreme wind events is increasing in Canada, making storm shelters a popular life-saving solution. However, current design codes lack specific guidelines for smaller scale storm shelters. This study compares North American design codes with detailed wind simulations conducted through wind tunnel testing, and analyzes critical zones that may exceed code-specified values.
In Canada, the number of extreme wind events is increasing due to climate change. Accordingly, storm shelters are becoming more popular, as it provides a life-saving solution during wind events. Currently, the National Building code of Canada (NBCC 2015) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7-16) codes consider storm shelters as low-rise buildings with high importance factor with no specific guidelines for their smaller scale. The current study aims at comparing North American codes for designing wind shelters to a detailed experimental wind simulation using boundary layer wind tunnel testing under the synoptic wind. Wind tunnel tests were conducted at Ryerson University for three commonly used shapes of storm shelters. The governing wind loads from the wind tunnel results were compared to the design codes for both structural forces and cladding pressures. The study also illustrates and quantifies critical zones that may exceed the codes provided values due to being flow separation regions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available