4.3 Article

Updates to the wind tunnel method for determining design loads in ASCE 49-21

Journal

WIND AND STRUCTURES
Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 163-178

Publisher

TECHNO-PRESS
DOI: 10.12989/was.2023.37.2.163

Keywords

atmospheric boundary layer; building aerodynamics; partial turbulence simulation; wind loads; wind tunnel methods

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper reviews and discusses the substantive changes to the ASCE 49-21 Standard, focusing on wind field simulations and wind load requirements. The modifications aim to ease the precise scaling requirements for flow simulations and propose research needs for aerodynamic mechanisms.
The paper reviews and discusses the substantive changes to the ASCE 49-21 Standard, Wind Tunnel Testing for Buildings and Other Structures. The most significant changes are the requirements for wind field simulations that utilize (i) partial turbulence simulations, (ii) partial model simulations for the flow around building Appurtenances, along with requirements for determining wind loads on products that are used at multiple sites in various configurations. These modifications tend to have the effect of easing the precise scaling requirements for flow simulations because it is not generally possible to construct accurate models for small elements placed, for example, on large buildings at the scales typically available in boundary layer wind tunnels. Additional discussion is provided on changes to the Standard with respect to measurement accuracy and data acquisition parameters, such as duration of tests, which are also related to scaling requirements. Finally, research needs with respect to aerodynamic mechanisms are proposed, with the goal of improving the understanding of the role of turbulence on separated-reattaching flows on building surfaces in order to continue to improve the wind tunnel method for determining design wind loads.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available