An Explanatory Handbook On Is 875 Part 1987

Docunenl No. :: IITK-CSDMA-WindO7-V1.
O
IinaI Repoil:: - Wind Codes
IITK-CSDMA Iiojecl on uiIding Codes

An Exp!anatnry Handbnnk nn
I5 875 (Part3):1987
WInd Lnads nn BuI!dIngs and 5tructurcs

oq

Dr. N.M. 8nandari
Dr. Prcn Krisnna
Dr.Krisncn Kunar
Depailnenl of CiviI Lngineeiing
Indian Inslilule of TechnoIogy Rooikee
Rooikee

Dr. Aonaq Gup|a
Depilnenl of CiviI Lngineeiing
Shii C. S. Inslilule of TechnoIogy and Science
Indoie

This docunenl has leen deveIoped undei lhe piojecl on uiIding
Codes sponsoied ly Cujaial Slale Disaslei Managenenl Aulhoiily,
Candhinagai al Indian Inslilule of TechnoIogy Kanpui.
The soIved exanpIes incIuded in lhis docunenl aie lased on IS 875
(Iail 3) : 1987.
The vievs and opinions expiessed aie lhose of lhe aulhois and nol
necessaiiIy of lhe CSDMA, lhe WoiId ank, IIT Kanpui, oi lhe
uieau of Indian Slandaids.
Connenls and feedlacks nay pIease le foivaided lo:
Iiof. Sudhii K }ain, Depl. of CiviI Lngineeiing, IIT Kanpui,
Kanpui 2O8O16, enaiI: niceeiilk.ac.in

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

||TK-GSDMA-l|ND07-V1.0 3

FOREWORD

This explanatory handbook is meant to provide a supplement to the I.S. 875 (Part 3)
1987 Wind Loads on Buildings and Structure.

Section 1 is an introductory note to reIlect the background state-oI-the-art scenario oI
wind engineering. This indeed Iorms the backdrop to any Iuture exercise that may be
undertaken to revise the code.

Section 2 oI this volume contains illustrative examples designed to demonstrate the
various parts oI the 'Indian Standard I.S.: 875 (Part 3)-1987 dealing with wind loads on
buildings and structures. The examples take the reader to a point whereby the wind load on a
particular structure is computed using the code.

Section 3 describes some examples which are unusual Irom the point oI view oI
determination oI wind loads, and Ior which straightIorward answers can not be had Irom the
code. These are dealt with through qualitative discussions. The suggestions are only
indicative.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

CONTENTS

SECTION -1

An Introductory Aote

SECTION -2

Illustrative Examples (1-2)

SECTION -3

Some Unusual Cases (1-8) for the Determination of wind Forces on
Buildings/Structures

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE

1.1 General

Wind has two aspects. The Iirst a
beneIicial one is that its energy can be
utilized to generate power, sail boats and
cool down the temperature on a hot day.
The other a parasitic one is that it
loads any and every object that comes in
its way. The latter is the aspect an engineer
is concerned with, since the load caused
has to be sustained by a structure with the
speciIied saIety. All civil and industrial
structures above ground have thus to be
designed to resist wind loads. This
introductory note is concerning the aspect
oI wind engineering dealing with civil
engineering structures.

Wind Ilow generation is on account
oI atmospheric pressure diIIerentials and
maniIests itselI into various Iorms, such
as,
Gales and monosonic winds
Cyclones/Hurricanes/Typhoons
Tornados
Thunderstorms
Localised storms
Photographs in Iigure1 depict
some oI these storms.

Friction Irom the earth`s surIace
leads to boundary layer` Ilow, but
characteristics oI Ilow vary depending
upon the storm type.

(a) Cyclonic Storms

(b) Thunderstorm

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

(c) Tornados
Figure 1 : various types of wind storms
Apart Irom monsoonic winds and
gales, oI greater interest in India are the
cyclonic storms that Irequently strike the
coasts and the tornados which appear
Ireakishly`. Figures 2 and 3 give some
data on cyclones.

Figure 2: General Structure of a Cyclone
CircumIerential
Wind Speed
Variation
Region oI
heavy
clouds, rain
and updraIt
Extent
300-600 km
Eye wall
a
b
Centre
a 20-30
km
b 30-50
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

Total no. oI Cyclones/Year (Global) 80
North-Eastern Hemisphere the worst hit, experiences almost 45 oI the Cyclones
India experiences about 6 cyclones/year, mostly on the East coast

Figure 3 : General Distribution of Cyclones over the Globe

There has been an increasing trend
oI natural hazard events as well as wind
induced disasters in the recent decades, as
also the losses caused in such disasters.
The reasons Ior this increasing trend can
be enumerated as below :
Population density is increasing
worldwide, particularly in large cities
and agglomerations. In the last twenty
years or so the number oI cities with
more than 1 million population may
have doubled Irom about 200.
Likewise mega cities with more than
10 million population may have gone
up Irom about 10 to 25.
At the same time the standard oI living
is increasing almost everywhere a bit
Iaster here, a bit slower there. Together
with the growing population density
this means an exponential increase in
the concentration oI values;
inIrastructure cost sustaining the
modern living standard.
Regions Iormerly avoided on account
oI their risk potential are now
populated. This applies above all to
coastal regions particularly exposed to
storms and storm surges, in many cases
also to major earthquakes and seismic
waves (tsunamis).
Industry is also moving into extremely
dangerous regions, concentrating huge
economic values in highly exposed
locations.
In many cases new building materials
such as glass and plastics used Ior
Iacades and rooIs are Iar more
susceptible to damage than
conventional methods and materials.
In certain periods, nature also becomes
responsible Ior bigger disasters, with
more dramatic trends in unleashing
natural hazards.

Tables 1 to 3 contain some relevant
inIormation on these events and the losses
thereIrom.

Equator
30
o

30
o

Cyclones occur
Sep. to Dec.

Cyclones occur
Jan. to March
5
o

5
o

Clockwise
Counter Clockwise
Almost All Cyclones form in this region
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

Table 1` : Natural Disaster Events and Economic Losses Decadewise.

Decade 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s
Numbers 27 47 63 84
Economic losses
(US $ billion)
73.1 131.5 204.2 591

Table 2` : Data for All Catastrophes 1985 - 2000

Item World Asia-Pacific
Loss Events (Nos.) 8,350 3,220 38.6
Economic Losses US$ million 8,95,800 4,26,270 47.6
Insured Losses US$ million 1,69,940 21,970 12.9
Loss oI LiIe (Nos.) 5,36,250 4,33,480 80.8

Table 3
`
: Data for All Catastrophes Vs Wind for Asia-Pacific 1985 - 2000

Item All Catastrophes Wind
Loss Events nos. 3,220 1,020 31.7
Economic Losses US$ million 4,26,270 62,120 14.6
Insured Losses US$ million 21,970 12,470 56.8
Loss oI LiIe nos. 4,33,480 60,250 13.9

There are various scales on which windstorms can be measured these are shown in
Table 4.

*
'Topics, Munich Reinsurance Company
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Table 4 : Various Scales for Measuring Wind Storms
Windstorm : Scales and Effects
Beaufort Scale Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale
Mean wind speed at 10 m
above surIace
Wind
pressure
SS Descriptive
term
Mean wind speed BIt Descriptive
term
m/s Km/h knots Kg/m
2
m/s Km/h knots
0 Calm 00.2 01 01 0 1 Weak 32.742.6 118153 6482
1 Light air 0.31.5 15 13 00.1 2 Moderate 42.749.5 154177 8396
2 Light
breeze
1.63.3 611 46 2.00.6 3 Strong 49.658.5 178209 97113
3 Gentle
breeze
3.45.4 1219 710 0.71.8 4 Very strong 58.669.4 210249 114134
4 Moderate
breeze
5.57.9 2028 1115 1.93.9 5 Devastating 69.5 250 135
5 Fresh
breeze
8.010.7 2938 1621 4.07.2 Fujita Tornado Scale
6 Strong
breeze
10.813.8 3949 2227 7.311.9 F Descriptive
term
m/s Km/h Knots
7 Near gale 13.917.1 5061 2833 12.018.3 0 Weak 17.232.6 62117 3463
8 Gale 17.220.7 6274 3440 18.426.8 1 Moderate 32.750.1 118180 6497
9 Strong gale 20.824.4 7588 4147 26.937.3 2 Strong 50.270.2 181253 98136
10 Storm 24.528.4 89102 4855 37.450.5 3 Devastating 70.392.1 254332 137179
11 Violent
storm
28.532.6 103117 5663 50.666.5 4 Annihilating 92.2116.2 333418 180226
12 Hurricane ~ 32.7 ~ 118 ~ 64 ~ 66.6 5 Disaster 116.3136.9 419493 227266

Wind storm disasters cause
widespread damage due to high wind
speeds, and Ilooding in case oI cyclones.
Figure 4 shows typical photographs.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

1. Water submergence; 2,3,4,5. Wall damage and rooI blown away; 6. Tower collapse, 7. Failure
oI a tower; 8. Uprooted tree damages nearby building

Figure 4: Typical Wind - Storm Damage
1.2 Structure of Wind
Wind is a randomly varying
dynamic phenomenon and a trace oI
velocity versus time Ior wind will be
typically as shown in Iigure 5. The wind
velocity V can be seen as a mean plus a
Iluctuating component responsible Ior
creating gustiness`. Within the earth`s
boundary layer, both components not only
vary with height, but also depend upon the
approach terrain and topography, as seen
Irom Iigure 6. While dealing with rigid
structures, the consideration oI the
equivalent static` wind is adequate.
However, in dealing with wind-sensitive
Ilexible structures, the consideration oI the
wind-energy spectrum, integral length
scale, averaging time and the Irequencies
oI the structure become important. The
determination oI wind velocity Ior a
certain geographical location is essentially
a matter oI statistical reduction oI a given
measured data. On this depend the various
wind zones. Another important decision
involved is the averaging time. In as Iar as
averaging time is concerned, it may be
anywhere Irom 2-3 seconds to 10 minutes
to an hour. The inIluence oI averaging
time on velocity is seen in Iigure 7.

8
7
4
5
6
3
2
1
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

Figure 5 : Variation of Wind Velocity with (a) Time (b) Height

V
g
Gradient Wind Velocity

Figure 6 : Influence of Terrain and Topography (Typical)

Fluctuating
Mean
(b)
H
e
i
g
h
t

a
b
o
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d

Wind Velocity
V
Time
V
Wind
velocity
) V V (V ' + =
(a)
1
Open
Sea
Treed, Windward
Coast
Speed-up Over
Hill Crest
Sheltered Leeward
Coast
0.80V
g
0.60 V
g
V
g

1.20 V
g

V
g

Speed Up
V
g

0.40V
g

V
g

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

Figure 7: Ratio of probable maximum speed averaged over period :t' to that averaged
over one hour.

1.3 Wind Forces on Structures
Most structures present bluII
Iorms` to the wind, making it diIIicult to
ascertain the wind Iorces accurately. Thus
the problem oI bluII-body aerodynamics
remains largely in the empirical,
descriptive realm oI knowledge. The Ilow
pattern and hence the wind
pressures/Iorces change with the Reynolds
number (Re) making the direct application
oI wind tunnel test results to real structures
diIIicult. Computational methods
(CFD/CFE) also pose problems Ior the
high Reynolds Number, Re encountered in
practice, leading to their inadequacy.
The oncoming turbulence causes
Iluctuations in the Ilow. As a result the
wind pressures also change with time, thus
aIIecting the values oI design wind
pressures. A typical case is that oI a
cylinder Ior which pressure distribution
changes with Re and surIace roughness.
The value oI the drag coeIIicient, C
d
,
Ior diIIerent situations is as given in Iigure
8. The surIace has been roughened Ior case
(c) by using sand, with the grain size K.

Figure 8 : Influence of Reynolds number, corner radius, and surface roughness on
drag coefficient, square to circular cylinders (r is the corner radius; k is the
grain size of sand)

C
d

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
While the separation oI Ilow in
non-bluII sharp edged bodies is well
deIined, the dimension oI the
body/building parallel to Ilow aIIects the
reattachment oI the separated Ilow` and
hence the suction pressures on leeward
side. Turbulence may cause an increase in
the suction pressures Ior thin bodies and a
decrease in the thick/long bodies.

The buildings and other civil
engineering structures are three-
dimensional bodies with a large variety oI
shapes and have complex Ilow patterns
and thereIore varied pressure distributions.
As a result, most 3-D studies rely partially
or wholly upon experiments. The
complexity oI wind Ilow is not only
introduced by the geometries oI typical
structures, but also by the characteristics oI
the terrain and other structures in the close
vicinity. This has necessitated the
determination oI wind pressures
experimentally in wind tunnels using
scaled models and simulated winds.
Besides, the buildings are never sealed and
wind pressures develop inside even in a
closed building, with maximum values
occurring in open buildings. These
generally add to the pressures outside,
creating worst possible eIIect on rooIs, as
well as walls.

In recent model studies, Iorces
acting over an element oI the building
have been measured by devices that
automatically add pressures occurring
simultaneously at several points oI the
element, weighted by the respective
tributary areas (University oI Western
Ontario). These measurements as well as
results oI Iull-scale tests have been used to
develop new design load provisions Ior
low-rise buildings that have been
incorporated in design standards. It is
established that local pressures can have
strongly non-Gaussian distributions,
especially at corners and edges. Tests on
low-rise building models have conIirmed
that the Iluctuating part oI the load can in
many instances be signiIicantly larger than
the mean load and that, Ior any given
storm, peak pressures and the ratio
between mean pressures and Iluctuating
pressures decreases as the terrain
roughness increases.

1.3.1 Wind Sensitive Structures
Tall and slender structures are
Ilexible and exhibit a dynamic response to
wind. Tall structures vibrate in wind due to
the turbulence inherent in the wind as well
as that generated by the structure itselI due
to separation oI the Ilow. Thus there is a
mean and a Iluctuating response to the
wind. Besides, the dynamic Iorces act not
only in the direction oI wind Ilow but also
in a direction nearly perpendicular to the
Ilow (liIt Iorces), so that tall structures also
exhibit an across-wind response.

Along-wind response has a mean
component (time-invariant load obtained
Irom the mean wind speed) and a
Iluctuating component. The latter is Iurther
expressed as a sum oI background and
resonant components. II the damping is
small, which is usually the case, the bulk
oI the contribution to the dynamic
response is due to the resonant portion.
Spectral response curves have been
developed and are used Ior predicting the
along-wind Iluctuating response oI a
building. The approach is Irequency based
and uses the theory oI random vibrations
as well as statistical considerations. In the
case oI line-like structures, like chimneys,
the problem becomes one-dimensional.
This simpliIication is used Ior analyzing
tall buildings as well, which is evidently
conservative.
As mentioned already, tall Ilexible
structures, exhibit an across-wind response
as well. This is on account oI Ilow
separation Irom the cross section oI the
structure, which results in vortices being
shed at a given Irequency. The pattern oI
this across-wind phenomenon is
comparatively more regular Ior circular
sections, such as those Ior chimneys and
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
towers, which can undergo resonant
vibrations when the structural Irequency
matches the Iorcing Irequency. The
response is aIIected signiIicantly by the
turbulence content oI the wind, and is
larger in smoother Ilows. When buildings
attain slender proportions which may
happen Ior very tall ones the across-wind
behaviour becomes important.

The theoretical treatment oI tall
slender structures in the along-wind
direction is better developed than Ior the
across-wind direction, and Ior this reason
it may be advisable to undertake model
studies in a wind tunnel Ior such
structures.

A body or a structure, such as a
building, a tower or a chimney, when
placed in a Ilow oI air will experience
pressures and Iorces. When one or more
similar or dissimilar bodies are placed
downstream or upstream oI a structure, the
stand-alone` values oI pressures and
Iorces get altered. This is termed as the
InterIerence EIIect. InterIerence will occur
irrespective oI whether the bodies involved
are rigid or Ilexible. In the Iormer it is the
wake` oI one body that aIIects the other,
while in the latter the deIlections oI the
body may also aIIect the wake itselI
(Figure 9). The phenomenon oI
interIerence is experienced extensively in
practice but is very diIIicult to quantiIy in
general because oI the variability oI
situations involved. Systematic wind
tunnel studies can nevertheless give some
guidance.

Figure 9: Typical wind flow around isolated and two nearby buildings

1.4 Determination of Wind Loads
It is common practice to approach
engineering problems Ior their analysis by
employing theoretical or experimental
means. Most problems are tackled
satisIactorily by using theoretical
solutions. Experimentation is carried out
only where necessary, oIten Ior physical
veriIication oI the theory employed.
Likewise, Ior tackling wind engineering
problems there are these two approaches.
However, in wind engineering, though
theoretical solutions have been developed,
there is a predominant use oI experimental
methods. On the theoretical side, on the
one hand there is the combination oI
statistical expression oI loads and
structural dynamics which has been in
common use Ior the last 40 years, and,
computational Iluid dynamics which has
evolved more recently. A rather useIul tool
that is developing as part oI computational
Wind Engineering (CWE) is the use oI
ArtiIicial Neural Networks (ANN).

The Iirst issue to be looked at is the
loading itselI. The last 50 years have
witnessed remarkable changes in the
manner oI assessing wind loads in
structural design (Davenport, 2001).
Flow around isolated building
Flow around two buildings
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
During this time the description oI wind
load has moved Irom relatively simple,
straightIorward notions oI static drag
Iorces to much more sophisticated models,
involving all the maniIold questions oI
climate, meteorology, aerodynamics,
structural mechanics and dynamics, and,
more recently, reliability. Furthermore,
earlier structures were, by present
standards, relatively massive. Structural
members themselves were heavier due to
the relatively weak materials, and dead
loads were higher due, Ior example, to the
heavy masonry and stone Iacades on
buildings, and the use oI heavy, reinIorced
concrete deck systems in bridges. These
massive structures were Irequently much
stiIIer than they were predicted to be due
to the participation oI the non-structural
components, the contribution oI which was
diIIicult to estimate. The massiveness oI
these structures did little to emphasize the
importance oI wind Iorces. Wind loads
were considered in a very simple way and
only the equivalent static` approach was
Iollowed. The skyscaper boom did much
to change this picture. In this context,
changes that have taken place vis-a-vis
structural materials and design, whereby
masses have dropped to almost halI,
strengths have more than doubled and
damping in structures has decreased.

Pioneering eIIort to give
expression to the complex randomly
varying phenomenon oI wind loading and
its use particularly in slender tall structures
came in the 1960s Irom A.G. Davenport
(1961, 1963a, 1963b). There are many
other notable contributions - to cite some
oI them, R.I. Harris (1963), N. Isyumov
(1982), B.J. Vickery (1978), and more
recently by A. Kareem (1999, 2001) and
G. Solari (2001). Methods so developed
permit a satisIactory analysis oI the along-
wind response oI tall structures such as
towers, chimneys and tall buildings. In as
Iar as the across-wind response is
concerned, success is limited, chimneys
being more amenable than other tall
structures. Similarly, there have been
developments in the aerodynamic analysis
oI long slender bridges, particularly oI the
cable supported type pioneering eIIort
coming Irom R.H. Scanlan, A.G.
Davenport, T. Miyata, H.F. Xiang, G.
Diana, M. Matsumoto and A. Larsen to
name some prominent investigators.

As opposed to the methods oI
theoretical analysis based on structural
dynamics, there is the development oI
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD).
EIIorts have been made with a signiIicant
measure oI success to make CFD as part oI
Computational Wind Engineering (CWE).
One oI the major issues herein is to be able
to model turbulence. The dawn oI CFD or
CWE may well be considered as the early
1980s. This Iield oI research has since
blossomed to an extent that 4-yearly
International ConIerences on the subject
have been held Iollowing the Iirst one in
Tokyo in 1992. Some oI those prominent
in their eIIorts in CWE in recent years are
S. Murakami, T. Tamura, W. Rodi, T.
Stathopoulos, R. Meroney and Paneer
Selvam. It has been possible (Murakami
1999) to obtain wind Iorces (Stathopolous
1997); determine wind-structure
interactions (Murakami et al.1997, Larsen
1998 and Tamura et al. 1995); wind
environment around buildings and
structures (Song and He 1998);
contaminant dispersion (Cowan et al.
1997, Tominaga et al. 1997 and Leitl et al.
1997); wind-driven rain and snowdriIt
(Choi 1997, Sankaran and Paterson 1997
and Tominaga and Mochida 1998);
evaluation oI spatial distribution oI wind
energy (Finarrdi et al. 1998); Ilow over
complex terrain (Montavon 1998), and
regional climate (Mochida et al. 1997,
Uchida and Ohya 1998). Accuracy
achieved as yet is still limited and there is
a long-way to go in solving diIIerent types
oI practical problems with reasonable
degree oI accuracy and eIIort.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Further, it has to be realised that, a
'theory without Iull-scale observations to
back it up is a dangerous commodity in
engineering design. It took a Tacoma
Narrows Bridge collapse to point out that
nature did not always contract to Iollow an
engineering theory. ThereIore, despite a
great deal oI eIIort being made on
development and reIinement oI theoretical
approaches and much success being
achieved on this Iront, experimental
methods remain the mainstay oI wind
engineering research and application.

Much oI the early wind tunnel
testing was carried out in aeronautical
tunnels within uniIorm Ilow. There were
some cases in which the vertical variation
oI velocity was modelled. A notable
change came when Jensen (1958) carried
out experiments on building models, and
observed that, 'the correct model test Ior
phenomena in the wind must be carried out
in a turbulent boundary layer and the
model law requires the boundary layer to
be scaled as regards the velocity proIile.
Developments in wind tunnel modelling
have since been on the upward trend.

The proliIeration oI wind tunnel
Iacilities has been quite remarkable over
the last 2-3 decades. This has been
accompanied by improvements in the
design oI wind tunnels but even more so in
the sophistication and capability oI the
instrumentation where there has been a
dramatic change. A large part oI a wind
tunnel exercise Ior model studies can now
be remote controlled and there is greater
speed and dependability now possible. For
the period in Iocus, it is a Iair assessment
that those who have made contributions
clearly more signiIicant than others in
developing the design oI wind tunnels and
modelling, are J.E. Cermak (1990) and
A.G. Davenport.

Interesting literature on low as well
as tall buildings has emerged in recent
years. To quote some oI this : Ahmed
(2000), Gupta (1996), Holmes (1983,
1995), Krishna (1995, 1998, 2001),
Kwatra (2000), Stathopoulos (1984),
Surrey (1999), Tieleman (1997), Yahyai
(1990).

There are two moot points that
emerge Irom the current state oI the art.
One, that the wind simulated in the tunnels
is generally synoptic wind, whereas the
extreme wind events that govern design
wind speeds are oIten at substantial
variance Irom the kind oI wind Ilow being
simulated. LetchIord (2001) brings out this
point quite clearly in a recent paper. The
other point that has been driven home
quite eIIectively in recent years is that the
model studies in wind tunnel oIten Iall
short oI representing the phenomenon in
the Iield. This has pointed to the need Ior
more work on prototype experimentation.
Some good examples oI prototype studies
on low buildings are provided by the
Aylesbury experiment (Eaton & Mayne,
1975), Texas Tech building (Levitan &
Mehta, 1992), Silsoe structures
(Robertson, 1992; Hoxey & Richards,
1995), and a Iew other structures.
Similarly, there are examples where long
span cable bridges have been instrumented
in Japan. These studies are leading to an
improvement in wind tunnel modelling oI
Ilow and structure as well as
instrumentation. Figure 10 gives
photographs oI wind tunnels being used
Ior testing models while Iigure 11 shows
the Iield laboratory Ior Iull scale testing at
Texas Tech University, USA.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

1,2 Building models; 3,4 Study oI interIerence; 5, Chimney model under study; 6, Study oI
the eIIect oI topography on a bridge model.
Figure 10 : Wind Tunnels in use for Model Testing

1 2
3
4
5
6
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

Figure 11: A Field Laboratory for Full Scale Testing at Texas Tech University

Despite decades oI work in wind
engineering research, there continue to be
missing links`. To quote Martin Jensen
(Davenport 1999) is apt in this regard :

'It may seem strange that within
the vast research Iield incorrect model
laws have been applied, but the
explanation is both simple and not very
Ilattering; the model tests have practically
never been checked by Iull scale tests in
nature.

To quote Davenport (1999) Iurther,
there are many examples oI gray areas
exempliIied below:
The erroneous assumptions concerning
the distribution oI wind pressures led
to the Iailure oI the Ferrybridge
cooling towers.
Topographic eIIects can easily give
rise to wind action which are
signiIicantly diIIerent Irom Iull scale
reality. For example, suspension
bridges in mountainous region can
have dramatic changes in wind Iorce
(~ 50) across the span.
Wind structure in intense local storms
such as tornadoes and 'downbursts
can deviate radically Irom large scale
storms.
It may be wrong to assume that wind
Iorces on sharp edged bodies are only
weakly dependent on scale or
Reynolds number. This may be true
most oI the time but there is evidence
that reattachment phenomena can
produce a strong sensitivity to
Reynolds Number which signiIicantly
aIIects pressures on the circular
cylinders, bridge decks and house
rooIs.
Wind loads on transmission towers in
turbulent wind may deviate Irom those
assumed in static testing. Full scale
tests are needed to explore these
questions.

1.5 CODES AND STANDARDS
Codes and standards and
commentaries / Handbooks thereon
provide a key source representing the state
oI the art inIormation on a given aspect oI
engineering discipline enabling the
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
extension oI knowhow, based on research
and experience, into practice.

In view oI the increasingly
improved database on wind itselI, a better
understanding oI the structure oI wind,
greater knowledge about the response oI
structure to wind, the wind loading
standards have been in Irequent revision.
Interpretation oI codes oIten throws up
questions, not always easy to resolve.
Explanatory or illustrative material is thus
oI great help to a designer. This volume
has been developed Ior this purpose.

It is obvious Irom the all round
developments in wind engineering over the
last 2-3 decades that an exercise be
undertaken to revise the current Indian
Code on Wind Loading : IS-875 (part-3)-
1987.

References
1. A.G. Davenport, 'The missing links
Proceeding oI the 10
th
International
ConIerence on Wind Engineering,
Copenhagen, Denmark. Vol. 1, pp. 3
13. 2124 June 1999.
2. Ahmad, Shakeel. 2000. Wind pressures
on low-rise hip rooI buildings. Ph.D.
Thesis. Department oI Civil
Engineering, University oI Roorkee,
Roorkee, India.
3. Cermak, J.E. 1990. Atmospheric
boundary layer modelling in wind
tunnel. Proc. on Intl. Symp. On Exp.
Determination oI wind loads on Civil
Engg. Structures, New Delhi, India.
4. Choi, E.C.C. 1997. Numerical
modelling oI gust eIIect on wind-
driven rain. J. Wind Eng. & Ind.
Aerodynamic 72: 107-116. (9
th
Int.
Symp. On Wind Engg. New Delhi,
India, 1995).
5. Cowan, I.R., I.P. Castro & A.G.
Robins. 1997. Numerical
Considerations Ior simulations oI Ilow
and dispersion around buildings. J.
Wind Engg. & Ind. Aerodyn.
67&68:535-545 (CWE II, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA, 1996).
6. Davenport, A.G. 1961. The application
oI statistical concepts to the wind
loading oI structures. Proc. ICE, Vol.
19.
7. Davenport, A.G. 1963a. The buIIeting
oI structures by Gusts. Proc. ICWE 1,
National Physical Laboratory,
Teddington, U.K.
8. Davenport, A.G. 1963b. The
relationship oI wind structures to wind
loading. Proc. ICWE 1, National
Physical Laboratory, Teddington, U.K.
9. Eaton, K.J. and Mayne, J.R. 1975. The
measurement oI wind pressures on
two-storey houses at Aylesbury. J. Ind.
Aero., 1, 67-109.
10.Finarrdi, S., G. Tinarelli, P. Faggian &
G. Brusasca. 1998. Evaluation oI
diIIerent wind Iield modelling
techniques Ior wind energy
applications over complex topography.
J. Wind. Engg. & Ind. Aerodyn. 74-76:
283-294. (2EACWE, Genova, Italy,
1997).
11.Gupta, Abhay. 1996. Wind tunnel
studies on aerodynamic interIerence in
tall rectangular buildings. Ph.D.
Roorkee, India.
12.Harris, R.I. 1963. The response oI
structures to gusts. Proc. ICWE 1,
National Physical Laboratory,
Teddington, U.K.
13.Holmes, J.D. 1983. Wind loads on low
rise buildings a review. CSIRO Div.
oI Building Research, Highett.
Victoria, Australia.
14.Holmes, J.D. 1995. Method oI
Iluctuating pressure measurement in
wind engineering. State-oI-the-art-
volume, 9
th
Int. ConI. Wind Engg.,
New Delhi, India.
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
15.Hoxey, R.P. and Richards, P.J. 1995.
Full-scale wind load measurements
point the way Iorward. J.W.E. & Ind.
Aero., 57, 125-224.
16.Isyumov, N. 1982. The aeroelastic
modelling oI tall buildings. Proc. Int`l
Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modelling
Criteria and Techniques, Natl. Bureau
oI Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland,
USA.
17.Jensen, M. 1958. The model law Ior
phenomena in natural wind. Ingenioren
(international edition), Vol. 2, No.4,
pp. 121-128.
18.Kareem, A. 1999. Analysis and
modelling oI wind eIIects: Numerical
techniques. Proc.10
th
Intl. ConI. Wind
Eng., Copenhagen, Denmark. Vol. 1.
19.Kareem, A. and Kijewski, T. 2001.
Probabilistic and Statistical
Approaches Ior Wind EIIects: Time
Frequency perspectives. 5
th
Asia
PaciIic ConI. On Wind Engineering
Kyoto Japan.
20.Krishna, P. 1995. Wind loads on low
rise buildings a review. J. Wind.
Engg. & Ind. Aerodyn. 54-55:383-396.
21.Krishna, P. 1998. Wind eIIects on
buildings and structures. Proc. ConI.
Wind EIIects on Bldgs. & Struct.,
Brazil. 97-120.
22.Krishna, P. 2001. EIIect oI wind on tall
buildings. Proc. Structural Engineering
Convention 2001, Department oI
Civil Engineering, Indian Institute oI
Technology, Roorkee, India.
23.Kwatra, N. 2000. Experimental studies
and ANN modelling oI wind loads on
low buildings. Ph.D. Thesis.
Department oI Civil Engineering,
University oI Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
24.Larsen, A. 1998. Advances in
aeroelastic analysis oI suspension and
cable-stayed bridges. J. Wind Eng. &
Ind. Aerodyn. 74-76:73-90. (2
EACWE, Genova, Italy, 1997).
25.Leitl, B.M., P.K., Klein. M. Rau &
R.N. Meroney. 1997. Concentration
and Ilow distributions in the vicinity oI
U-shaped buildings: wind tunnel and
computational data. J. Wind Eng. &
Ind. Aerodyn. 67 & 68: 745-755,
(CWE II, Fort, Collins, Colorado, ISA,
1996).
26.LetchIord, C.W., Mans, C. and Chay
M.T. 2001. Thunderstorms Their
Importance in Wind Engineering (A
Case Ior the Next Generation Wind
Tunnel). 5
th
Asia PaciIic ConI. On
Wind Engineering Kyoto Japan.
27.Levitan, M.L., and Mehta, K.C. 1992.
Texas Tech Iield experiments Ior wind
loads part I: building and pressure
measuring system. J.W.E. & Ind.
Aero., 43, 1565-1576.
28.Mochida, A., S. Murakami. T. Ojima
et al. 1997. CFD analysis oI mesoscale
climate in the greater Tokyo area. J.
Wind Engg. & Ind. Aerodyn. 67&68:
459-477. (CWEII, Fort, Collins,
Colorado, USA, 1996).
29.Montavon, C. 1998. Validation oI a
non-hydrostatic numerical model to
simulate stratiIied wind Iields over
complex topography. J. Wind Eng. &
Ind. Aerodyn. 74-76: 273-282.
(2EACWE, Genova, Italy, 1997).
30.Murakami, S. and Mochida, A. 1999.
Past, present, and Iuture oI CWE: The
view Irom 1999. Proc. OI the 10
th
Int.
ConI. On Wind Engineering,
Copenhagen, Denmark. Vol. 1.
31.Murakami, S., A. Mochida & S.
Sakamoto. 1997. CFD analysis oI
wind-structure interaction Ior
oscillating square cylinders. J. Wind
Engg. & Ind. Aerodyn. 72:33-46. (9
th

Int. ConI. On Wind Engg., New Delhi,
India, 1995).
32.Robertson, A.P. 1992. The wind-
induced response oI a Iull-scale portal
Iramed building. J.W.E. & Ind. Aero.,
43, 1565-1576.
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
33.Sankaran, R. & D.A. Paterson. 1997.
Computation oI rain Ialling on a tall
rectangular building. J. Wind Eng. &
Ind. Aerodyn 72: 127-136. (9
th
Int.
Symp. On Wind Engg. New Delhi,
India, 1995).
34.Solari, G. 2001. Analytical Methods
Ior Estimating the Wind-Induced
Response Ior Structures. 5
th
Asia
PaciIic ConI. On Wind Engineering
Kyoto Japan.
35.Song, C.C.S. & J. He. 1998.
Evaluation oI pedestrian winds in
urban area by numerical approach.
Paper preprints, International
Workshop on 'CFD Ior Wind Climate
in Cities: 239-248.
36.Stathopolous, T. 1997. Computational
Wind Engineering: past achievements
and Iuture challenges. J. Wind Engg. &
Ind. Aerodyn. 67&68: 509-532. (CWE
II, Fort Collins. Colorado, USA, 1996).
37.Stathopoulos, T. 1984. Wind Loads on
low rise building a review oI the state-
oI-the-art. Engg. Struct. 6.
38.Surry, D. 1999. Wind loads on low-rise
buildings: Past, present and Iuture.
Proc. oI 10
th
Intl. ConI. Wind Engg.,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
39.Tamura, T., Y. Itoh, A. Wada & K.
Kuwahara. 1995. Numerical study oI
pressure Iluctuations on a rectangular
cylinder in aerodynamic oscillation. J.
Wind Engg. & Ind. Aerodyn.
54&55:239-250. (3
rd
Asia-PaciIic
Symp. On Wind Engg., Hong Kong,
1993).
40.Tieleman, H.W., Hajj, M.R. and
Reinhold, T.A. 1997. Wind tunnel
simulation requirements to assess wind
loads on low-rise buildings. 2
EACWE, 1093-110, Genova, Italy.
41.Tominaga, Y. & A. Mochida. 1998.
CFD prediction oI IlowIield and
snowdriIt around building complex in
snowy region. Paper preprints.
International Workshop on 'CFD Ior
Wind Climate in Cities: 221-228.
42.Tominaga, Y., S. Murakami & A
Mochida. 1997. CFD prediction oI
gaseous diIIusion around a cubic
model using a dynamic mixed SGS
model based on composite grid
technique. J. Wind Engg. & Ind.
Aerodyna. 67&68: 155-167. (CWE II,
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, 1996).
43.'Topics, Munich Reinsurance
Company.
44.Uchida, T. & Y. Ohya. 1998.
Numerical simulation oI atmospheric
Ilow over complex terrain. Paper
preprints, International Workshop on
'CFD Ior Wind Climate in Cities:
229-238.
45.Vickery, B.J. 1978. A model Ior the
prediction oI the response oI chimneys.
Proc. 3
rd
Intl. Symp. For Design oI
Industrial Chimneys, Munich,
Germany.
46.Yahyai, M. 1990. Aerodynamic
interIerence in tall buildings. Ph.D.
Roorkee, India.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 1 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Building: Flat RooI
Example 2 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Building with Parapet &
Overhangs: Flat RooI
Example 3 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Building: Taller with Flat
RooI. The building has 40 openings 1.5 m 1.5m
Example 4 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Building: Pitched RooI
Example 5 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Taller Building with
Pitched RooI
Example 6 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Pitched RooI Short
Building in Coastal Region
Example 7 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Partially Clad Building: Pitched
RooI
Example 8 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Building: Mono-slope RooI
Example 9 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Open Building: Mono-slope
RooI
Example 10 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Pitched RooI Building with
Clad Verandah
Example 11 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Pitched RooI Building with
Open Verandah
Example 12 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Building on A Ridge or
Hill: Pitched RooI
Example 13 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Building on A CliII &
Escarpment: Pitched RooI
Example 14 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Building on Slope oI A
Ridge or Hill: Pitched RooI
Example 15 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Building: Hipped RooI
Example 16 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Iree standing duo-pitch rooI oI an unclad
parking shed
Example 17 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Iree standing duo-pitch rooI oI an unclad
parking shed: Bent up
Example 18 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Free Standing Mono-slope RooI
Example 19 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Building: Multi-span Saw-
tooth RooI
Example 20 Wind Forces on a Free Standing Framed Compound Wall with Barbed Wire
Fencing at Top
Example 21 Wind Forces on a Sign Board Hoarding
Example 22 Wind Pressure and Forces on an Overhead Intze Type RCC Water Tank on
12m braced Staging
Example 23 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Overhead RCC Water Tank on
12m Iramed Staging
Example 24 Wind Pressure and Forces on an Overhead Intze Type RCC Water Tank on
ShaIt Staging
Example 25 Wind Pressure and Equivalent Static Forces on a Multistory Commercial
Complex
Example 26 Wind Pressure and Forces on a Multistory Commercial Complex by Gust
Factor Approach
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example-1: Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad
Building: Flat Roof

Problem Statement:
Calculate wind pressures and design Iorces on walls and rooI oI a rectangular building having plan
dimensions 10m50m and height 5m, as shown in Iigure-1.1. The building is situated in Mohali
(Chandigarh) in an upcoming Institutional complex on a Iairly level topography. Walls oI building have 20
openings oI 1.5m1.5m size. The building has a Ilat rooI supported on load bearing walls.

Figure 1.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
1. Wind Zone: Zone IV (J
b
47m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
(ReIer Basic Wind Speed Map (Fig. 1)
2. Terrain category: Terrain Category 2
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)

Design Factors:
Risk CoeIIicient Factor k
1
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
Terrain & Height Factor k
2
0.98 (Class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Factor k
3
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Permeability oI the Building:
Area oI all the walls 5 (210 250) 600m
2

Area oI all the openings 201.51.5 45m
2

opening area 7.5 , between 5 and 20
Hence the building is oI Medium permeability.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)

Design Wind Pressure:
Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.0 46.06 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (46.06)
2
1272.9 N/m
2
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

ReIer note below Sec. 5.3 Ior buildings less than
10m height, while making stability calculations &
design oI the Iraming.

Wind Load Calculations:
F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)

Internal Pressure CoeIIicient
C
pi
0.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)

Note: buildings shall be analysed once Ior pressure oI
0.5 Irom inside and then Ior a suction oI 0.5 Irom inside
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.1) along-with external pressure
coeIIicient.

External Pressure CoeIIicients
On RooI: Using the Table 5 with rooI angle 0
o

without local coeIIicients. For h/w 0.5, pressure
coeIIicients are tabulated below

0
o
10 m

50 m

5 m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Table 1.1
Portion oI rooI Wind Incidence Angle
0
o
90
o
E -0.8 -0.8
F -0.8 -0.4
G -0.4 -0.8
H -0.4 -0.4
(ReIer Iigure below Table 5 oI IS:875-pt.3)

Design Pressure Coefficients for Roof:
Positive internal pressure will act towards the rooI
while negative internal pressure will be away Irom
the rooI. Hence ve internal pressure will be added
to ve external pressure coeIIicient and vice-a-
versa. The combinations will have to be made
separately Ior zones E, F, G, H etc. as shown in Fig.
1.2.

Design Pressure Coefficients for Walls:
For h/w 0.5 and l/w 5, C
pe
Ior walls
1

Table 1.2
Angle of Incidence 0
o
90
o

Wall A 0.7 -0.5
Wall B -0.25 -0.5
Wall C -0.6 0.7
Wall D -0.6 -0.1
(ReIer Table 4 oI IS:875-pt.3)

1
: Since the pressure coeIIicients are given only Ior
buildings with l/w ratio up to 4, Ior longer buildings i.e.
l/w ~ 4, at present values corresponding to 4 are being
used.

These will be combined with internal pressure
coeIIicients as earlier, equal to C
pi
0.5

C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.5) -1.0, suction

C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.5) -1.1, suction

Design pressures Ior walls:

For Long walls: F C
pnet
A
net
p
d

1.2 11 1.273 1.5276 kN/m
2
Pressure
-1.0 11 1.273 1.273 kN/m
2
Suction

For Short walls: F C
pnet
A
net
p
d

1.2 11 1.273 1.5276 kN/m
2
Pressure
-1.1 11 1.273 1.4003 kN/m
2
Suction

For RooI: F C
pnet
A
net
p
d

1.3 11 1.273 1.655 kN/m
2
Suction
0.1 11 1.273 0.1273 kN/m
2
Pressure

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
For 0
o
wind incidence, for E/G (End Zone)

OR

For 90
o

OR

For 0
o
wind incidence, for F/H (Mid Zone)

OR

For 90
o

OR

Figure 1.2- Net Roof Pressure Coefficients for different zones and combinations

0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
E
G
E
G
0.8
0.5 0.5
0.4
1.3 0.9
E G E G
0.8
0.5
0.3
EG EG
1.3
EG
0.8
0.5
EG
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
F
H
F
H
0.8
0.5 0.5
0.4
1.3
0.9
F
H
F
H
0.4
0.5
0.1
FH FH
0.9
FH
0.4
0.5
FH
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example-2: Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad
Building with Parapet & Overhangs: Flat Roof

Problem Statement:
What diIIerence will occur iI the building in Ex.1 has 1.5m overhangs and 1m high parapets, as shown in
Iigure 2.1?

Figure 2.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)

Design Factors:
1
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
0.98 (Class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Factor k
3
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Area oI all the walls 5 (210 250) 600m
2

Area oI all the openings 201.51.5 45m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.0 46.06 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (460.6)
2
1272 N/m
2
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

10m height, while making stability calculations &
design oI the Iraming.

F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)
C
pi
0.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
Note: buildings shall be analysed once Ior pressure
oI 0.5 Irom inside and then Ior a suction oI 0.5
Irom inside (IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.1) along-with
external pressure coeIIicient.
On RooI: Using the Table 5
*
with rooI angle 0
o


Table 2.1
Portion of roof Wind Incidence Angle
0
o
90
o
E -0.8 -0.8
F -0.8 -0.4
G -0.4 -0.8
H -0.4 -0.4
(ReIer Iigure below Table 5 oI IS:875-pt.3)

*
Pressure coeIIicients adopted are the same as Ior Ilat
rooIs without overhand or parapet.
0
o
10 m

50 m

5

m

1 m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
separately Ior zones E, F, G, H etc. as given in the
Iig. 2.2.

For h/w 0.5 and l/w 5, C
pe
Ior walls*

Table 2.2
o
90
o
Wall A 0.7 -0.5
Wall B -0.25 -0.5
Wall C -0.6 0.7
Wall D -0.6 -0.1
(ReIer Table 4 oI IS:875-pt.3)
*: Since the pressure coeIIicients are given only Ior
used.

pi
0.5

C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.5) -1.0, suction

C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.5) -1.1, suction

Design pressures Ior walls:
For Long walls: F C
pnet
A
net
p
d

1.2 11 1.273 1.5276 kN/m
2
Pressure
-1.0 11 1.273 -1.273 kN/m
2
Suction

For Short walls: F C
pnet
A
net
p
d

1.2 11 1.273 1.5276 kN/m
2
Pressure
-1.1 11 1.273 -1.4003 kN/m
2
Suction

For RooI: F C
pnet
A
net
p
d

-1.3 11 1.273 1.655 kN/m
2
suction
0.1 11 1.273 -0.1273 kN/m
2
pressure

Max. Design Pressure on parapets shall be same as
pressure on the corresponding wall at the top
1.21.01.01.273 1.5276 kN/m
2
(Pressure)
-1.11.01.01.273 -1.4003 kN/m
2
(Suction)

Pressure coefficients on overhanging portion of
Roof: (IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.27)
On the top side oI overhang: same as nearest top
non-overhanging portion oI rooI i.e., -0.8 & -0.4

On the underside oI overhang: since the overhang is
horizontal, the max. Pressure coeIIicient shall be
1.0 (Section 6.227)

ThereIore overhangs oI this building shall be
designed Ior a net upward wind pressure
coeIIicient oI -0.8 (1.0) -1.8, i.e. suction,

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
For 0
o

OR

For 90
o

OR

For 0
o

OR

For 90
o

OR


0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4 0.3
0.1
E
G
E
G
0.8
0.5 0.5
0.4 1.3
0.9
E G E G
0.8
0.5
0.3
EG EG
1.3
EG
0.8
0.5
EG
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
F
H
F
H
0.8
0.5 0.5
0.4
1.3
0.9
F
H
F
H
0.4
0.5
0.1
FH FH
0.9
FH
0.4
0.5
FH
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 3: Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad
Building: Taller with Flat Roof.

Problem Statement:
What diIIerence will occur iI the height oI building in Ex.1 is 18m and it is to be used Ior a cold storage?
The structure consists oI RC column-beam Irame at 5mc/c horizontally and 3m c/c vertically, supporting the
wall. The Building has a Ilat rooI with beams at 5m c/c. The building has 40 openings 1.5 m 1.5m.

Figure 3.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
Design Factors:
1
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
varying with height as
in Table 3-1.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Factor k
3
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Area oI all the walls 18 (210250) 2160 m
2

Area oI all the openings 401.51.5 90 m
2

opening area 4.166 , less than 5.
Hence the building is oI low permeability.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
Design Wind Pressure
Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

47 1.0 k
2
1.0 (47 k
2
) m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
/ 1000
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

Table 3.1: Calculation of Variation in Design
Wind Speed & Pressure with Height

Height Irom k
2
J
Z
p
Z

Ground, m m/s kN/m
2

Up to 10m 0.98 46.06 1.273
15m 1.02 47.94 1.38
18m 1.038
48.786 1.43
: linearly interpolated
F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
(or p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)

10 m

50 m

18 m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
C
pi
0.2
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.1)
(reIer IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.2.1) along-with external
pressure coeIIicient.

External Pressure CoeIIicient
o


Table 3.2
0
o
90
o
E -0.7 -0.9
F -0.7 -0.7
G -0.6 -0.9
H -0.6 -0.7
p
d
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2

0.6 (48.786)
2
1.43 kN/m
2

separately Ior zones E, F, G, H etc. See Iig. 3.2.

ReIer Table 4 oI code: h/w 1.8, and l/w 5,
thereIore C
pe
Ior walls
1

Table 3.3
Angle oI Incidence 0
o
90
o

Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.4 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.7 0.8
Wall D - 0.7 - 0.1
1
used.

coeIIicients as earlier equal to C
pi
0.2

C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.2) 0.9, pressure
-0.5 (0.2) -0.7, suction

C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.8 (-0.2) 1.0, pressure
-0.7 (0.2) -0.9, suction

These C
pnet
values multiplied by respective design
pressure, depending on height give the design Iorce
per unit area, as in the previous example.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
For 0
o

or

For 90
o

or

For 0
o

or

For 90
o

0.7
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.4
E
G
E
G
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.6 0.9
0.8
E
G
E
G
0.9
0.2
0.7
EG EG
1.1
EG
0.9
0.2
EG
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.4
F
H
F
H
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.6 0.9
0.8
F
H
F
H
0.7
0.2
0.5
FH FH
0.9
FH
0.7
0.2
FH
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 4: Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad
Building: Pitched Roof
Problem Statement:
Calculate wind pressures and design Iorces on walls and rooI oI a rectangular clad building with
pitched rooI, having plan dimensions 10m50m and height 5m, as shown in Iigure-4.1. The building is
situated in Dhanbad (Bihar) in an industrial area 500m inside open land on a Iairly level topography.
Walls oI building have 20 openings oI 1.5m1.5m size. The rooI is oI GC sheeting & the rooI angle
is 15
0
. Calculate also the local wind pressures on rooI & wall cladding. The columns & trusses are at
5m c/c, longitudinally, purlins are at 1.4m c/c and columns at Gable ends are at 5m c/c.

Figure 4.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
Dhanbad is situated in Zone II at the boundary
oI Zone II & Zone IV. For such places higher
Zone is recommended. ThereIore,
Wind Zone: Zone IV (J
b
47 m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
2. Terrain category: Transition Irom Category 1
to Category 2.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
Note: A combined wind speed proIile is to be worked
out as per AppendixB (IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.4) but
since height oI boundary layer developed aIter 500m
Ietch length is more than building height oI 5m, only
eIIects due to Terrain Category 2 are to be
considered. A combined proIile would be needed in
case oI tall structures.

Design Factors:
Risk CoeIIicient Iactor k
1
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
Terrain & Height Iactor k
2
0.98
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Area oI all the walls
5 (210 250) 20.51.3410
613.4 m
2

Area oI all the openings
201.51.5 45 m
2

opening area 7.336 , between 5 and
20. Hence the building is oI medium
permeability.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.0 46.06 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (47.00)
2
1325.4 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)
ReIer note below Sec. 5.3 oI IS:875-pt.3 Ior
buildings less than 10m height, while making
stability calculations and design oI the Irame.

F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)
Internal Pressure CoeIIicient C
pi
0.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)

Note: buildings shall be analysed once Ior pressure
oI 0.5 Irom inside and then Ior a suction oI 0.5 Irom
inside (reIer IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.1) along-with
external pressure coeIIicient.

0
o
10 m

50 m

5 m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Using the Table 5 with rooI angle 15
o
. For h/w
0.5, pressure coeIIicients are tabulated in
Table 4.1 (reIer Iigure below Table 5 oI IS:875-
pt.3)
Table 4.1
0
o
90
o
E -0.8 -0.75
F -0.8 -0.6
G -0.4 -0.75
H -0.4 -0.6

Positive internal pressure will act towards the
rooI while negative internal pressure will be
away Irom the rooI. Hence ve internal pressure
will be added to ve external pressure
coeIIicient and vice-a-versa. The combinations
will have to be made separately Ior zones E, F,
G, H etc., as given in Iigure 4.2.

ReIer Table 4 oI the code: h/w 0.5, and l/w 5
thereIore C
pe
Ior walls
1

Table 4.2
o
90
o

Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.25 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.6 0.7
Wall D - 0.6 - 0.1
1
buildings with l/w ratio up to 4, Ior longer buildings
i.e. l/w ~ 4, at present values corresponding to 4 are
being used.

pi
0.5

C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.5) -1.0, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.5) -1.1, suction
Local pressure coefficients for the design of
claddings and fasteners

ReIer Table 5 oI IS-875 Ior RooI Angle 15
0

Local C
pe
Ior eaves portion in end zone: NA
Local C
pe
Ior eaves portion in mid zone: NA
Local C
pe
Ior ridge portion: -1.2
Local C
pe
Ior gable edges: -1.2
Local C
pe
Ior corners oI walls: -1.0

ThereIore Max. local C
pnet
Ior rooI at the edges
and the ridge -1.2 (0.5) -1.7
Likewise at the wall edges -1.0 (0.5) -1.5

Zone oI local coeIIicients 0.1510 1.5m, at
ridges, eaves and gable ends & 0.2510 2.5m
Ior wall corners. In this region the cladding and
Iasteners shall be checked Ior increased Iorce.
ReIer note below Table 4 oI code

Calculations of Force due to Frictional Drag:
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.1)
This will act in the longitudinal direction oI the
building along the wind. Here hb, thereIore,
Iirst equation will be used & C
f
0.02. This
will be added to the wind Iorce on gable walls.
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
For End Zone E/G; 0
o
wind incidence

0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5

For End Zone E/G; 90
o
wind incidence

0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25

0.5 0.5
OR
0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25

0.5 0.5

For Mid Zone F/H; 0
o
wind incidence

0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5

For Mid Zone F/H; 90
o
wind incidence

0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1

0.5 0.5
OR
0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1

0.5 0.5

Figure 4.2 - Net Roof Pressure Coefficients for different zones and combinations

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 5 - Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad Taller
Building with Pitched Roof
Problem Statement:
What diIIerence will occur iI the height oI the building in Example 4 is 18m and it has 40 openings oI
1.5m1.5m size as shown in Iigure 5.1?

Figure 5.1
Solution:
Wind Data:
1. Dhanbad is situated in Zone II at the boundary oI
Zone II & Zone IV. For such places higher Zone is
recommended. ThereIore,
b
47 m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
2. Terrain category:
Transition Irom Category 1 (open land) to Category
2 (open land with Iew structures oI low height)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
out as per Appendix B ((IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.4) but
eIIects due to Terrain Category 2 are to be considered. A
combined proIile would be needed in case oI taller
structures.

Design Factors:
1
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
: Varies with height, as
given Table 5.1
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Area oI all the walls 18 (210250) 2160 m
2

2

opening area 4.166 , less than 5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.0 k
2
1.0 (47 k
2
) m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
/ 1000
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

Table 5.1: Calculations of variation in design
wind speed & pressure with height (for class-B
structure)

Height Irom k
2
J
Z
p
Z

Ground, m m/s kN/m
2

Up to 10m 0.98 46.06 1.273
15m 1.02 47.94 1.38
18m 1.038
48.786 1.43
: linearly interpolated.
10 m

50 m

18 m

0
o
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)

pi
0.2
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
(reIer IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.1) along-with external

o

For h/w 1.8, pressure coeIIicients are tabulated
in Table 5.2 (reIer Iigure below Table 5 oI code)

Table 5.2
0
o
90
o
E -0.75 -0.8
F -0.75 -0.8
G -0.6 -0.8
H -0.6 -0.8

separately Ior zones E, F, G, H etc., as given in
Iigure 5.2.

ReIer Table 5 oI code: h/w 1.8, and l/w 5
thereIore C
pe
Ior walls
1
Table 5.3
o
90
o

Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.4 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.7 0.8
Wall D - 0.7 - 0.1

1
used.

coeIIicients as earlier equal to C
pi
0.2.

C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.2) 0.9, pressure
-0.5 (0.2) -0.7, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.8 (-0.2) 1.0, pressure
-0.7 (0.2) -0.9, suction


ReIer Table 4 oI IS-875 Ior Wall and Table 5 Ior
RooI (Angle 15
0
)
Local C
pe
Ior eaves portion in end zone: -1.75
Local C
pe
Ior eaves portion in mid zone: -1.5
Local C
pe
Local C
pe
Local C
pe

pnet
Ior rooI at the edges and
the ridge -1.75 (0.2) -1.95

ridges, eaves and gable ends & 0.2510 2.5m Ior
wall corners. In this region the cladding and
(ReIer note below table 4 oI IS:875-pt.3)

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.1)
building along the wind. Here h~b, thereIore,
second equation will be used & C
f
0.02.
********
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

For End Zone E/G; 0
o
wind incidence

0.75 0.6 0.95 0.8

0.2 0.2
OR
0.75 0.6 0.55 0.4

0.2 0.2

o
wind incidence

0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0

0.2 0.2
OR
0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6

0.2 0.2

For Mid Zone F/H; 0
o
wind incidence

0.75 0.6 0.95 0.8

0.2 0.2
OR
0.75 0.6 0.55 0.4

0.2 0.2

o
wind incidence
0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0

0.2 0.2
OR
0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6

0.2 0.2


|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 6 - Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Clad
Pitched Roof Short Building in Coastal Region
Problem Statement:
What diIIerence will occur iI the building in Example 4 is an industrial building situated in
Vishkhapattanam (Andhra Pradesh) near seacoast?

Figure 6.1
Solution:
Wind Data:
1.Wind Zone: Zone V (V
b
50m/s)
(IS:875-pt. 3, Sec 5.2)

2. Terrain category: Ior open seacoast
conditions, use Category 1
(IS:875-pt. 3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
Terrain & Height Iactork
2
` 1.03 (class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3,Sec 5.3.3.1)
Permeability of the Building:
5 (210 250) 20.51.3410 613.4 m
2

2

opening area 7.336 , between 5 and 20.
Hence the building is oI medium permeability.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

501.01.031.0 51.5 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (51.5)
2
1591.35 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

10m height, while making stability calculations
and design oI the Irame.
F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)
pi
0.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
0.5 Irom inside and then Ior a suction oI 0.5 Irom
inside along-with external pressure coeIIicient.
(IS:875-pt.3, sec.6.2.3.1)
o

in Table 6-1 (IS:875-pt.3, Table 5)

Table 6.1
0
o
90
o
E -0.8 -0.75
F -0.8 -0.6
G -0.4 -0.75
H -0.4 -0.6

while negative internal pressure will be away
Irom the rooI. Hence ve internal pressure will be
added to ve external pressure coeIIicient and
0
o
10 m

50 m

5 m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
vice-a-versa. The combinations will have to be
made separately Ior zones E, F, G, H etc., as
given in Iigure 6.2

ReIer Table 4 oI IS:875-pt.3: h/w 0.5, and l/w
5 thereIore C
pe
Ior walls
1

Table 6.2
o
90
o

Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.25 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.6 0.7
Wall D - 0.6 - 0.1

1
i.e. l/w ~ 4, at present values correspodning to 4 are
being used.

pi
0.5

C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.5) -1.0, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.5) -1.1, suction

ReIer Table 5 oI IS-875-pt.3 Ior RooI Angle 15
0

Local C
pe
Ior eaves portion in end zone: NA
Local C
pe
Ior eaves portion in mid zone: NA
Local C
pe
Local C
pe
Local C
pe

pnet
and the ridge -1.2 (0.5) -1.7

ridges, eaves and gable ends & 0.25*10 2.5m
(IS:875-pt. 3, Table 6)

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.1)
building along the wind. Here hb, thereIore, Iirst
equation will be used & C
f
0.02.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
For End Zone E/G; 0
o
wind incidence

0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5

o
wind incidence

0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25

0.5 0.5
OR
0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25

0.5 0.5
For Mid Zone F/H; 0
o
wind incidence

0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR

0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5
o
wind incidence

0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1

0.5 0.5
OR
0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1

0.5 0.5

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 7 - Wind Pressure and Forces on a Rectangular Partially
Clad Building: Pitched Roof

Problem Statement:
What diIIerence will occur iI the walls oI the building in Example 4 is halI clad in upper part and
halI open as shown in Iigure 7.1?

Figure 7.1
Solution:
Wind Data:
Dhanbad is situated in Zone II at the boundary oI
Zone II & Zone IV. For such places higher Zone
is recommended. ThereIore,
b
47 m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)

2. Terrain category: Transition Irom Category 1 to
Category 2.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
out as per Appendix B (Sec 5.3.2.4) but since height
oI boundary layer developed aIter 500m Ietch length is
more than building height oI 5m, only eIIects due to
Terrain Category 2 are to be considered. A combined
proIile would be needed in case oI tall structures.
Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` 0.98 (Class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)
Since the walls are halI open, the building comes
under the category oI large openings and analysis
is to be carried out as per Section 6.2.3.2. As per
para 1 oI section 6.2.3.2 use more than 20
opening clause and consider 0.7 internal
pressure on walls and rooI.

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.0 46.06 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (46.06)
2
1272.9 N/m
2
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
C
pnet
A p
d
( p
z
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)
pi
0.7

External Pressure CoeIIicients:
o
below (reIer Iigure below Table 5 oI code)

Table 7.1
0
o
90
o
E -0.8 -0.75
F -0.8 -0.6
G -0.4 -0.75
H -0.4 -0.6

0
o
10 m

50 m

2.5 m

2.5 m

Cladding

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
made separately Ior zones E, F, G, H etc., as in
Iigure 7.2.

thereIore C
pe
Ior walls*

Table 7.2
o
90
o

Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.25 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.6 0.7
Wall D - 0.6 - 0.1
being used.
pi
0.7
C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.7) 1.4, pressure
-0.5 (0.7) -1.2, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.7) 1.4, pressure
-0.6 (0.7) -1.3, suction

claddings and fasteners:
0

Local Cpe Ior eaves portion in end zone: NA
Local Cpe Ior eaves portion in mid zone:NA
Local Cpe Ior ridge portion: -1.2
Local Cpe Ior gable edges: -1.2
Local C
pe

pnet
and the ridge -1.2 (0.7) -1.9

(IS:875-pt.3, Table-5)

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.1)
f
0.02.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
For End Zone E/G; 0
o
wind incidence
0.8 0.4 1.5 1.1

0.7 0.7
OR
0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3

0.7 0.7

o
wind incidence
0.75 0.75 1.45 1.45

0.7 0.7
OR
0.75 0.75 0.05 0.05

0.7 0.7
For Mid Zone F/H; 0
o
wind incidence

0.8 0.4 1.5 1.1

0.7 0.7
OR
0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3

0.7 0.7

o
wind incidence
0.6 0.6 1.3 1.3

0.7 0.7
OR
0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1

0.7 0.7
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Building: Mono-slope Roof

Problem Statement:
What diIIerence will occur in design Iorces iI the building in Example 4 has a mono slope rooI with rooI
angle 10
0
, the eaves height at the lower end being 5m? The building has 1 m wide overhangs at both the
eaves. See Iigure 8.1.

Figure 8.1
Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47 m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
Category 2.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
out as per Appendix B (IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.4) but
eIIects due to Terrain Category 2 are to be considered.
A combined proIile would be needed in case oI tall
structures.
Design Factors:
1
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1,Table-1)
2
` 0.98 (class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Area oI all the walls 5 (210 250) 2
0.5 1.76 10 1.76 50 705.6 m
2

2

Hence the building is oI medium permeability
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.0 46.06 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (46.06)
2
1272.9 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)
pi
0.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.2.2)
10 m

50 m

5 m

10
o
1 m

0
o
1 m

1 m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
inside (reIer Sec 6.2.3.1) along-with external pressure
coeIIicient.
For underside oI overhang portion: Table 8.3.

Table 8.3
Roof side Wind angle-- 0
o
90
o
180
o
270
o

Above wall A (higher end) +0.75 -0.50 -0.25 -0.50
Above wall B (Lower end) -0.25 -0.50 +1.25 -0.50
Above wall C (gable end) -0.60 +1.00 -0.60 -0.10
Above wall D (gable end) -0.60 -0.10 -0.60 +1.00
(ReIer Clause 6.2.3.5 & Table 5)

o
For h/w 5/12 0.417, pressure coeIIicients are
tabulated in Table 8-1 (IS:875-pt.3, Table 6)

Overhang portion: same as local coeIIicient on
nearest non-overhang portion, i.e. 2.0
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.2.7)
Table 8.1
Wind Incidence Angle Portion of
Roof 0
o
45
o
90
o
135
o
180
o

Windward
(widthwise
leIt halI)
-1.0 -1.0 -1.0/
-0.5
-0.8 -0.4
Leeward
(widthwise
right halI)
-0.5 -0.8 -1.0/
-0.5
-1.0 -1.0

made separately Ior diIIerent zones, as given in
Figure 8-2.

ReIer Table 4 oI code: h/w 5/10 0.5, and l/w
50/10 5 thereIore C
pe
Ior walls* are given in
Table 8-2.

Table 8.2
o
90
o

Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.25 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.6 0.7
Wall D - 0.6 - 0.1
being used.
pi
0.5
C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.5) -1.0, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.5) -1.1, suction

Local pressure coefficients:
Local coeIIicients Ior rooI: Max. value Irom all
the values given in Table 6 oI IS:875-pt.3, i.e.
2.0- (0.5)} -2.5, up to 0.15 x w 0.15 x 12
1.8m on all edges oI rooI.
Local coeIIicients Ior walls: From Table 4 oI the
IS:875-pt.3, it is -1.0 (0.5)} -1.5, Ior a
distance oI 0.25 x w .25 x 10 2.5m at all
corners.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.1)
f
0.02.
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

For 0
o
wind incidence, C
pi
+0.5
2.0* 2.0* 1.0 0.5
2.0* 2.0*

0.75 0.5 0.25
Which is equivalent to
2.75 2.5 1.5 1.0 2.5
1.75

For 0
o
wind incidence, C
pi
-0.5
2.0* 2.0* 1.0 0.5
2.0* 2.0*

0.75 0.5
0.25
2.75 1.5 0.5 0.0
1.5 1.75

For 90
o
wind incidence, C
pi
+0.5, up to w/2 from ends
2.0* 2.0* 1.0 1.0
2.0* 2.0*

0.5 0.5
0.5
1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
2.5 1.5

And similarly Ior other combinations.
* These are local pressure coeIIicients
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Open Building: Mono-slope Roof

Problem Statement:
What change will occur iI the building in Example 8 is open at the higher end as shown in Iigure
9.1, and is without overhangs?

Figure 9.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47 m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
Category 2.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
Design Factors:
1
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
0.98 (Class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)
Since one oI the walls oI the structure is open, it
comes under the category oI large permeability
exceeding 20 opening.
(IS:875-pt.3, Fig. 2, Sec 6.2.3.2)
Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.0 47.00 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (46.06)
2
1272.9 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)
Internal Pressure CoeIIicient: Ior b/d 50/10
5 ~ 1
(IS:875-pt.3, Fig. 3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
C
pi
Ior 0
o
incidence 0.8
C
pi
Ior 180
o
incidence -0.4
C
pi
Ior 90
o
& 270
o
incidence -0.5

Using the (IS:875-pt.3, Table 6) with rooI angle
10
o
tabulated in table 9.1.
0
o

5 m

10
o

50 m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Table 9.1

Figure 8-2.
ReIer Table 4 oI code: h/w 5/10 0.5, and l/w
50/10 5 thereIore C
pe
Ior walls* are given in
Table 9-2.

Table 9.2
o
90
o

Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.25 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.6 0.7
Wall D - 0.6 - 0.1
being used.
coeIIicients as given above
C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.8) -1.3, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.8) -1.4, suction

Local pressure coefficients:
Local coeIIicients Ior rooI: Max. value Irom all
the values given in IS:875-pt.3, Table 6, i.e.2.0-
(0.8)} -2.8, up to 0.15 w 0.15 x 10 1.5m
on all edges oI rooI.

Local coeIIicients Ior walls: From IS:875-pt.3,
Table 4, it is -1.0 (0.8)} -1.8, Ior a distance oI
0.25 w .25 10 2.5m at all corners.
In this region the Iasteners shall be designed to
carry increased Iorce.

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.1)
f
0.02. This will be
added to the wind Iorce on gable walls.

Wind Incidence Angle Portion of
Roof 0
o
45
o
90
o
135
o
180
o

Windward
(widthwise
leIt halI)
-1.0 -1.0
-1.0/-
0.5
-0.8 -0.4
Leeward
(widthwise
right halI)
-0.5 -0.8
-1.0/-
0.5
-1.0 -1.0
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
For 0
o
wind incidence, C
p
i +0.8
2.0* 1.0 0.5
2.0*

0.8

2.8 1.8 1.3
2.8

For 180
o
wind incidence, C
pi
-0.4
2.0* 0.4 1.0
2.0*

0.4
1.6 0.0 0.6
1.6

For 90
o
/ 270
o
wind incidence, C
pi
-0.5, up to w/2 from ends
2.0* 1.0 1.0
2.0*

0.5
1.5 0.5 0.5
1.5

And similarly Ior other combinations.
*Local Pressure coeIIicients on rooI edges.
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Pitched Roof Building with Clad Verandah

Problem Statement:
What diIIerence will occur iI the building in Example 4 is attached with a small clad mono-slope building oI
dimensions 5m width, 3m height on outer wall and 4m on the common wall, as shown in Iigure-10.1. The
monoslope building has 1.0m overhang.

Figure 10.1
Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47 m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
Category 2.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` 0.98 (Class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Permeability oI the Building: (keeping same as in
Ex.4, all openings on the external walls)
Area oI all the walls 5(2105023.5)
1.33 10 1/2 2 350 1 50 598.6 m
2

2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.0 46.06 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (46.06)
2
1272.9 N/m
2

(IS:875:pt.3, Sec 5.4)

Total wind Iorce on a joint or member or element,
F (C
pe
-C
pi
)*A* p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)
pi
0.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
180
o
10 m

50 m

5 m

4 m

3 m

5 m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
coeIIicient.
For Main Building: Using the Table 5 with rooI
angle 15
o
(Ior c` & d` in table 20)
tabulated in Table 10-1.

Table 10.1
0
o
90
o

E -0.8 -0.75
F -0.8 -0.6
G -0.4 -0.75
H -0.4 -0.6
For portions a` and b` oI the canopy: h
1
/h
2
5/4
1.25 1.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Table 20)
For 0
o
wind incidence: on a`: Cpe -0.45 & on
b`: Cpe -0.5
For 180
o
b`: Cpe -0.4
For 90
o
/ 270
o
wind incidence: on a`: Cpe -1.0
up to 2.5m Irom ends and 0.5 thereaIter, Irom
IS:875-pt3., Table 6. On b`: Cpe - 0.5, Irom
IS:875-pt.3, Table 4.

Iigure 10-2.

ReIer Table 4 oI code: h/w 0.5, and l/(w1w2)
3.33 thereIore C
pe
Ior walls

Table 10.2
o
90
o
Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.25 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.6 0.7
Wall D - 0.6 - 0.1
Note: Here Walls A, B, C & D reIers to the external
walls oI combined building.
pi
0.5
C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.5) -1.0, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.5) -1.1, suction

Design Pressure coefficients for Overhangs:
For 0
0
wind incidence, i.e. Irom overhang side,
Cpi 1.25
For other directions, Cpi shall be the same as on
the adjoining wall, as above, 0.7 or 0.5.
Cpe -2.0, being the max. on the nearest non-
overhanging portion oI canopy rooI.
Design pressure coeIIicient on overhang: -2.0-
(1.25) -3.25
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec. 6.2.2.7)

0

Local C
pe
Ior eaves portion in end zone:NA
Local C
pe
Ior eaves portion in mid zone:NA
Local C
pe
Local C
pe
Local C
pe
Ior canopy rooI: -2.0
(IS:875-pt.3, Table 6)

ThereIore Max. C
pnet
-1.2 (0.5) -1.7, Ior
pitched rooI -2.0 (0.5) -2.5, Ior canopy
rooI

Zone oI local coeIIicients 0.15 10 1.5m, at
ridges, eaves and gable ends oI pitched rooI and
0.15 5 .75m Ior canopy rooI. In this region
the Iasteners shall be designed to carry increased
Iorce.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.1)
f
0.02.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
For End Zone E/G; 0
o
wind incidence
0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.45 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.95 1.0

0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.45 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.05 zero

0.5
o
wind incidence

0.4 0.8 0.9 1.3

0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9

0.5
OR
0.4 0.8 0.1 0.3

0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1

0.5
o
wind incidence
0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25

1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.0

0.5
OR
0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25

1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0

0.5
For Mid Zone F/H; 0
o
wind incidence
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.45 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.95 1.0

0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.45 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.05 zero

0.5

o
wind incidence
0.4 0.8 0.9 1.3

0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9

0.5
OR
0.4 0.8 0.1 0.3

0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1

0.5

o
wind incidence
0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0

0.5
OR
0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

0.5

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Pitched Roof Building with Open Verandah

Problem Statement:
What diIIerence will occur iI the mono-slope annexe in Example 10 is unclad (open) on all the
three sides as shown in Iigure 11.1?

Figure 11.1
Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47 m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
Category 2.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
out as per Appendix B (IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.4) but
eIIects due to Terrain Category 2 are to be considered.
A combined proIile would be needed in case oI tall
structures.
Design Factors:
Risk CoeIIicient Iactor, k
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
Terrain & Height Iactor,k
2
0.98 (Class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor, k
3
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Permeability oI the Building: (keeping same as in
Ex.4, all openings on the external walls)
Area oI all the walls 5 (210 250) 2 6.7
613.4 m
2

2


(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.0 46.06 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (46.06)
2
1272.9 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)
pi
0.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
inside (IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.1) along-with external
For Main Building: Using the Table 5 with rooI
angle 15
o
(Ior c` & d` in IS:875-pt.3, Table 20)
3 m

180
o
10 m

50 m

5 m

4 m

5 m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
in Table 11-1. (ReIer Iigure below IS:875-pt.3,
Table 6)
Table 11.1
0
o
90
o
E -0.8 -0.75
F -0.8 -0.6
G -0.4 -0.75
H -0.4 -0.6

For portions a`, b` and e` oI the combined part:
h1/h25/41.251.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Table 20)
For 0
o
b`: Cpe -0.5
For 180
o
wind incidence: on a: Cpe -0.4 & on
b`: Cpe -0.4

For 90
o
/ 270
o
wind incidence: on a`: Cpe -1.0
up to 2.5m Irom ends and 0.5 thereaIter, Irom
IS:875-pt.3, Table 6. On b`: Cpe - 0.5, Irom
For canopy rooI, overhanging Irom building: Cpi
1.25, Ior 0
o
wind incidence and 0.5 Ior other
directions which is the max. Pressure on adjoining
wall. (reIer IS:875-pt.3, Sec. 6.2.2.7)

made separately Ior zones, as given in Iigure 11-
2.
thereIore C
pe
Ior walls* are given in Table 11-2.
Table 11.2
o
90
o

Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.25 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.6 0.7
Wall D - 0.6 - 0.1
i.e. l/w ~ 4, at present values up to 4 are being used.

pi
0.5

C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.5) -1.0, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.5) -1.1, suction


0
Local Cpe Ior eaves portion in mid zone: NA
ThereIore Max. Cpnet -1.2 (0.5) -1.7

For canopy rooI, Cpnet -2.0 (0.5) -2.5
For Pitched rooI: Zone oI local coeIIicients
0.1510 1.5m, at ridges, eaves and gable ends.

For canopy rooI: Zone oI local coeIIicients
0.155 0.75m, at eaves and gable ends.

In this region the Iasteners shall be designed to
carry increased Iorce.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.1)

f
0.02.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

For End Zone E/G; 0
o
wind incidence
0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.45 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.7 1.0

1.25
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.45 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.7 zero

1.25
o
wind incidence

0.4 0.8 0.9 1.3

0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.9

0.5
OR
0.4 0.8 0.1 0.3

0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1

0.5
o
wind incidence
0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25

1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0

0.5
OR
0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25

1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0

0.5
For Mid Zone F/H; 0
o
wind incidence
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.45 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.7

1.25
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.45 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.7 zero

1.25

o
wind incidence
0.4 0.8 0.9 1.3

0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.9

0.5
OR
0.4 0.8 0.1 0.3

0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1

0.5
o
wind incidence

0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0

0.5
OR
0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

0.5
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Building on A Ridge or Hill: Pitched Roof

Problem Statement:
Calculate wind pressures and design Iorces on walls and rooI oI a rectangular clad resort building with
pitched rooI, having plan dimensions 10m30m and height 5m, as shown in Iigure-12.1. The building is
situated in outskirts oI Jaipur on a hilltop 10m high having upwind and downwind slopes oI 18
0
and 10
0
,
respectively. The building has 16 openings oI 1.5m 1.5m size. The rooI is oI GC sheeting & the rooI angle
is 15
0
. Calculate also the local wind pressures on rooI & wall cladding. The columns and trusses are at 5m
c/c longitudinally, purlins are at 1.4m c/c and columns at Gable ends are at 5m c/c.

Figure 12.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
1. Wind Zone: Zone IV (V
b
47m/s)
Note: Jaipur is situated in Zone IV.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
2. Terrain category: Category 2 Ior the
moderately developed area.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` 0.98 (Class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.198*
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1 & App. C`)
* : see calculations oI k
3
at the end.

Area oI all the walls 5 (210 230) 2 6.7
413.4m
2

2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.198 55.18 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)

p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (55.18)
2
1826.89 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)
pi
0.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.2.2)
inside (IS:875-pt.3, 2 Sec 6.2.3.1) along-with external
pressure coeIIicient
o
in Table 12-1. (reIer Iigure oI IS:875-pt.3, Table
5)

Table 12.1
0
o
90
o
E -0.8 -0.75
F -0.8 -0.6
G -0.4 -0.75
H -0.4 -0.6
18
o

10
o

0
o

10 m
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
given in Iigure 12-2.


thereIore C
pe

Table 12.2
o
90
o
Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.25 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.6 0.7
Wall D - 0.6 - 0.1
being used.

pi
0.5
C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.5) -1.0, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.5) -1.1, suction

0

Local Cpe Ior eaves portion in end zone:NA
Local C
pe

Max. local C
pnet
Ior rooI at the edges and the ridge
-1.2 (0.5) -1.7


(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.1)
f
0.02.

CALCULATIONS FOR TOPOGRAPHY
FACTOR k
3

Wind Irom leIt:
H 10 m, : 10 m, L 10/tan 18
o
30.777 k
3

1 C.s
For 18
o
, C 0.36 (C-2)
Factor s` is obtained Irom C-2.1 and Iigure 17,
Ior crest position
Le :/0.3 10/0.3, H/Le 10/10/0.3 0.3
s 0.55
k
3
1 0.36 0.55 1.198

Wind Irom right:
H 10 m, : 10 m, L 10/tan 10
o
56.7 m
C 1.2 (:/L) 1.2 (10/56.7) 0.21
For 10
o
, Le L 56.7 m
H/Le 10/56.7 0.176 s 0.7
k
3
1 0.21 0.7 1.147
Using k
3
1.198, being the critical one.

10 m
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
For End Zone E/G; 0
o
wind incidence
0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5

o
wind incidence

0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25

0.5 0.5
OR
0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25

0.5 0.5
For Mid Zone F/H; 0
o
wind incidence

0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5

o
wind incidence

0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1

0.5 0.5
OR
0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1

0.5 0.5
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Building on A Cliff & Escarpment: Pitched Roof

Problem Statement:
What diIIerence will occur iI the building in Example12 is situated on a hill having upwind and downwind
slopes oI 15
0
and 01
0
, respectively as shown in Iigure 13.1?

Figure 13.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` 0.98
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.193*
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1 & App. C`)
3
at the end.

6.7 413.4m
2

2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.1931.0 54.95 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (55.18)
2
1811.67 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)


F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)
pi
0.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
inside (IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.1) along-with external
pressure coeIIicient

Using the IS:875-pt.3, Table 5 with rooI angle 15
o
in Table 13-1. (IS:875-pt.3, Table 5)

Table 13.1
0
o
90
o
E -0.8 -0.75
F -0.8 -0.6
G -0.4 -0.75
H -0.4 -0.6



15
o

01
o

0
o

10 m
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987


thereIore C
pe

Table 13.2
o
90
o
Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.25 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.6 0.7
Wall D - 0.6 - 0.1

*: Since the pressure coeIIicients are given only
Ior buildings with l/w ratio up to 4, Ior longer
buildings i.e. l/w ~ 4, at present values
corresponding to 4 are being used.

pi
0.5

C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.5) -1.0, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.5) -1.1, suction

0

Local C
pe

Max. local C
pnet
-1.2 (0.5) -1.7


(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.1)

f
0.02. This will be
added to the wind Iorce on gable walls.

Calculations for Topography Factor k
3

Wind Irom leIt:
Note: Here H 10m, z 10m & L 10/tan 15
0

37.32

k
3
1 C. s
Ior 15
0
, C 1.2(:/L) 1.2 (10/37.32) 0.321
Irom C-2}
Ior 01
0
, C 1.2(:/L) 1.2 (00/37.32) 0.00
Irom C-2}
Iactor s` is obtained Irom C-2.1 and Iigure 16 Ior
crest position
H/Le (10/37.32) 0.268 s 0.6
ThereIore k
3
1 0.321 0.6 1.193, wind Irom
leIt &
1 0.00 0.6 1.000, wind Irom right
Using k
3

10 m
15
o
1
o
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

For End Zone E/G; 0
o
wind incidence
0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5

o
wind incidence

0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25

0.5 0.5
OR
0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25

0.5 0.5

For Mid Zone F/H; 0
o
wind incidence

0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5

o
wind incidence

0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1

0.5 0.5
OR
0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1

0.5 0.5
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Building on Slope of A Ridge or Hill: Pitched Roof

Problem Statement:
What diIIerence will occur iI the building in Example12 is situated in the middle oI the upwind slope oI a
hill 50m high, upwind and downwind slopes being 18
0
and 10
0
respectively, as shown in Iigure 14.1?

Figure 14.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` 0.98 (Class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.127*
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1 & App. C`)
3
at the end.

6.7 413.4m
2

2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.2.2)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.127 51.91 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (51.91)
2
1616.76 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)


F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)
pi
0.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
Note: buildings shall be analysed once Ior
pressure oI 0.5 Irom inside and then Ior a suction
oI 0.5 Irom inside (reIer Sec 6.2.3.1) along-with
external pressure coeIIicient

o

in Table 14-1. (reIer Iigure Table 5 oI code)

Table 14.1
0
o
90
o
E -0.8 -0.75
F -0.8 -0.6
G -0.4 -0.75
H -0.4 -0.6


18
o

10
o

0
o

50 m
25 m
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987


thereIore C
pe

Table 14.2
o
90
o
Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.25 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.6 0.7
Wall D - 0.6 - 0.1

being used.

pi
0.5

C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.5) -1.0, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.5) -1.1, suction

0

Max. local C
pnet
-1.2 (0.5) -1.7

ridges, eaves and gable ends. In this region the
cladding and Iasteners shall be checked Ior
increased Iorce.

Calculations for Topography Factor k
3

(ReIer IS:875-pt.3, Appendix-C)

For wind Irom leIt to right: Z 50m H 25m
Le Z/0.3 50/0.3 166.67m Ior 18
0
, C
0.36 and Irom C-2}
Iactor s` is obtained Irom C-2.1 and IS:875-pt.3,
Figure 17 Ior upwind position
H/Le (25/166.67) 0.15 & X/Le -(77/166.67)
-0.462 s 0.3
k
3
1 C. s 1 0.36 .3 1.108
For wind Irom right to leIt: Z 50m H 25m
Le L 50/tan 10
0
283.56m
Ior 10
0
, C 1.2(Z/L) 1.2 (50/283.56)
0.2116
Iactor s` is obtained Irom C-2.1 and IS:875-pt.3,
Figure 17 Ior downwind position
H/Le (25/283.56) 0.09 & X/Le (77/283.56)
0.271 s 0.6
ThereIore k
3
1 0.2116 0.6 1.127
Using k
3

50 m
18
o
10
o
25 m
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
For End Zone E/G; 0
o
wind incidence
0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5

o
wind incidence

0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25

0.5 0.5
OR
0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25

0.5 0.5
For Mid Zone F/H; 0
o
wind incidence

0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5

o
wind incidence

0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1

0.5 0.5
OR
0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1

0.5 0.5
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Building: Hipped Roof

Problem Statement:
Calculate wind pressures and design Iorces on walls and rooI oI a rectangular clad building with hipped rooI,
having plan dimensions 10m20m and height 5m, as shown in Iigure-15.1. The building is situated in Jaipur
on a Iairly level topography. Walls oI building have 20 openings oI 1.5m1.5m size. The rooI is oI GC
sheeting & the rooI angle is 15
0
. Calculate also the local wind pressures on rooI & wall cladding.

Figure 15.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` 0.98
(Class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

5 (2 10 220) 300 m
2

2

opening area 15 , between 5 and 20

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.0 46.06 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (46.06)
2
1272.9 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)


F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)

pi
0.5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)
coeIIicient

o
in Table 15-1. (reIer Iigure below Table 5 oI
code)
Table 15.1
Portion oI rooI* Wind Incidence Angle
0
o
90
o
E -0.8 -0.75
F -0.8 -0.6
G -0.4 -0.75
H -0.4 -0.6
Hipped slope, M,N -0.75 -0.8(windward)
-0.4 (leeward)
* See Figure 15.2.
0
o
10 m

20 m

5 m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
given on Iigure 15.3.

Hipped slopes shall be subjected to a net pressure
coeIIicient oI
-0.8 (0.5) -1.3 or 0.4 (-0.5) 0.1

thereIore C
pe

Table 15.2
o
90
o
Wall A 0.7 - 0.5
Wall B - 0.25 - 0.5
Wall C - 0.6 0.7
Wall D - 0.6 - 0.1

pi
0.5

C
pnet
Ior Walls A or B
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.5 (0.5) -1.0, suction
C
pnet
Ior Walls C or D
0.7 (-0.5) 1.2, pressure
-0.6 (0.5) -1.1, suction

0

Local Cpe Ior eaves portion in mid zone: NA
Local Cpe Ior gable edges (hipped part): -1.2

Local C
pe

pnet
and the ridge -1.2 (0.5) -1.7

Iasteners shall be checked Ior increased Iorce

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.1)

f
0.02.

Figure 15.2 : Plan of the building. M,N are hipped slopes

E
F H
G
N
M

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

For End Zone E/G; 0
o
wind incidence

0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5

o
wind incidence

0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25

0.5 0.5
OR
0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25

0.5 0.5

For Mid Zone F/H; 0
o
wind incidence

0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9

0.5 0.5
OR
0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.5 0.5

o
wind incidence

0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1

0.5 0.5
OR
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1

0.5 0.5

For hipped slopes M,N : 0
o
wind incidence

For hipped slopes M,N : 90
o
wind incidence

Figure 15.3 -Net Roof Pressure Coefficients for different zones and combinations

0.5
0.75
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.75
M
0.5

0.80

0.5

0.80

0.5

0.40

0.5

0.40

N
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 16 - Wind Pressure and Forces on a free standing duo-
pitch roof of an unclad parking shed

Problem Statement:
Calculate wind pressure and design Iorces on a Iree standing duo-pitch rooI oI an unclad parking shed
having dimensions 10m50m and height oI 5m up to eaves. The rooI oI shed is bent down, as in Iigure 16.1.
The shed is located at Bareilly (UP) in the Transport Nagar area. A Iacia oI 1m has been provided at both the
longitudinal walls. The rooI angle is 15
0
. Assume that Iull obstruction can occur on one side i.e. the
solidity ratio may vary Irom 0 to 1.0.

Figure 16.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
Note: Bareilly is situated in Zone IV.

2. Terrain category: Category 2
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)

Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` 0.98 (Class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.0 46.06 m/s
(IS:875.pt.3, Sec 5.3)

p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (46.06)
2
1272.9 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)


F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)

Net Pressure CoeIIicients
RooI angle 15
o
: h/w 0.5 & L/w 5
Max. ve rooI pressure, Ior 0 0.4
Max. -ve rooI pressure, Ior 0 -0.8
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec. 6.2.2.4)
Force coeIIicient on Iacia 1.3

Calculating solidity ratio:
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.2.4)
area oI obstruction perpendicular to wind /
min. area under canopy perpendicular to wind

Now depending on position as upwind or
downwind, eIIect is to be considered. Only Ior
downwind obstruction is to be considered. For
upwind blockage 0 is to be used

0
o
10 m

50 m

5 m

15
o
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Irom the rooI. As per note below Table 8, each
slope oI the duo pitch canopy should be able to
withstand Iorces using both the max. and min.
coeIIicients, and the whole canopy should be able
to support Iorces using one slope at the max.
coeIIicient with the other slope at the min.

Hence, the design rooI pressure combinations
would be as given in Iigure 16.2.

ThereIore, the Iasteners shall be designed Ior
increased Iorce as per C
pnet
2.8 to 1.7,
according to . The spacing in all end zones,
extending upto L/10 5m at gable ends and w/10
1 m at eaves and ridges shall be reduced
appropriately.

Force on Iacia shall be used Ior the design oI
columns.

Local pressure coeIIicients Ior the design oI
claddings and Iasteners

Table 16.1
mid zone gable ends eaves zone ridges
0, ve 0.9 1.9 1.4 0.4
0, -ve -0.9 -1.7 -1.4 -1.8
1, ve 0.9 1.9 1.4 0.4
1, -ve -1.5 -2.2 -1.9 -2.8

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Both slopes at -ve pressure coefficients and 0 (case 1)
0.8 0.8

1.3

Both slopes at +ve pressure coefficients and 0 (case 2)
0.4 0.4

1.3


1.2 1.2

1.3

0.4 0.4

1.3

One slope at -ve and other at +ve pressure coefficient and 0 (case 5)

0.8 0.4

1.3

One slope at -ve and other at +ve pressure coefficient and 1 (case 6)

1.2 0.4

1.3

Case 1, 2 and 5 need not be analysed.
Figure 16.2: Net Roof Pressure Coefficients for different zones and combinations
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 17 - Wind Pressure and Forces on a free-standing duo-
pitch roof of an unclad parking shed: Bent up

Problem Statement:
What diIIerence will occur iI the rooI oI Example16 is bent up, as in Iigure 17.1. The rooI angle is 15
o
and
there is no Iacia. The rooI is used at a railway yard where goods trains 3m high may stand by the side?
Height at the eaves is 5m.

Figure 17.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)

2
` 0.98 (Class-B)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)

Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.981.0 46.06 m/s
(IS:875.pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (46.06)
2
1272.9 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)


F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)


With rooI angle 15
o
: h/w 0.5 & L/w 5
Max. ve rooI pressure, Ior 0.82* 0.5
Max. -ve rooI pressure, Ior 0.82* -0.76

*Calculating solidity ratio, :
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.2.4)
area oI obstruction perpendicular to wind /
min. area under canopy perpendicular to wind
3/(5-5 tan 15
o
) 3/3.66 0.82, assuming 3m
height blockage. For upwind blockage 0 is to
be used.

Irom the rooI. As per note below Table 8, each
slope oI the duo pitch canopy should be able to
withstand Iorces using both the max. and min.
coeIIicients, and the whole canopy should be able
to support Iorces using one slope at the max.
coeIIicient with the other slope at the min.

Hence, the design rooI pressure combinations
would be as shown in Fig. 17.2.
5 m
15
o
50 m

0
o
5 m
5 m
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

Both slopes at -ve pressure coefficients and 0.82 (case 3)
0.76 0.76

Both slopes at +ve pressure coefficients and 0.82 (case 4)
0.5 0.5

One slope at -ve and other at +ve pressure coefficients and 0 (case 5)
0.6 0.5

One slope at -ve and other at +ve pressure coefficients and 0.82 (case 6)
0.76 0.5

Case 1, 2 and 5 need not be analysed.
Fig. 17.2 Net Roof Pressure Coefficients for different zones and combinations

Local Pressure Coefficients :
Local pressure coeIIicients Ior design oI cladding
and Iasteners obtained Irom IS:875-pt.3, Table 8
are given below:

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Table 17.1: Local pressure coefficients for the design of claddings and fasteners

mid zone gable ends eaves zone ridges
0, ve 0.6 1.5 0.7 1.4
0, -ve -0.8 -1.3 -1.6 -0.6
.82, ve 0.6 1.5 0.7 1.4
.82, -ve -1.05 -1.63 -1.85 -1.09

ThereIore, the Iasteners shall be designed Ior C
pnet

1.85. The spacing in all end zones, extending
p to L/10 5m at gable ends and w/10 1m at
eaves and ridges, shall be reduced accordingly.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 18 - Wind Pressure and Forces on a Free Standing Mono-
Slope Roof
Problem Statement:
Calculate wind pressure and design Iorces on a Ireestanding mono-slope rooI oI a canopy having dimensions
5m20m and height oI 3m up to lower eaves. The canopy is located at Agra (UP) near the city center. The
rooI angle is 10
0
. See Iigure 18.1.

Figure 18.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875.pt.3, Sec 5.2)
2. Terrain category: The structure is located near
to city center where there will be numerous
structures oI medium height. This corresponds to
the Terrain Category 3.
Depending on the type oI development, an
intermediate condition between category 2 and 3
may also be selected and Iactor k
2
` may be taken
as mean-value.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)

Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` 0.88
(Class-B)
(IS.875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Design Wind Speed V
Z
V
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.881.0 41.36 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (41.36)
2
1026.40 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

ReIer note below IS:875-pt.3, Sec. 5.3 Ior
stability calculations and Irame designing.
F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)

o

and solidity ratio 0

For h/w 3.9/5 0.78, and L/w 20/5 4,
pressure coeIIicients are tabulated below (though
values are only given Ior L/w up to 3.

Max. (largest ve) overall coeIIicient 0.5

5 m

3 m

0
o
20 m

10
o
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Max. (largest -ve) overall coeIIicient -0.9
Local coeIIicients:
At eaves, up to 0.10 w 0.10 5 0.5 m
1.6 or 2.1
At ends, up to 0.10 L 0.10 20 2.0 m
2.4 or 2.0
In mid zone
1.2 or 1.5

Irom the rooI. Net design pressure coeIIicient
shall be either 0.5 or 0.9. For cladding and
Iasteners, -1.5 shall be used. For cladding design,
value oI 2.4 should be used.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Building: Multi-span Saw-tooth Roof

Problem Statement:
Calculate wind pressures and design Iorces on the walls and rooI oI a multi-span saw tooth (North light) rooI
building having 5 bays oI 10m each. The building is 100m long and height to eaves is 10m, as shown in
Iigure 19.1. The building is situated in Bokaro (WB) in an industrial area 500m inside open land on a Iairly
level topography. Walls oI building have 40 openings oI 1.5m1.5m size. The rooI is oI GC sheeting & the
rooI angle is 15
0
. Calculate also the local wind pressures on rooI & wall cladding. The columns & trusses
are at 5m c/c longitudinally, purlins are at 1.4m c/c and columns at Gable ends are at 5m c/c.

Figure 19.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875.pt.3, Sec 5.2)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)

more than building height oI 12.68m, only eIIects due
to Terrain Category 2 are to be considered. A
combined proIile would be needed in case oI tall
structures.

Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` 0.93 Ior walls,
0.957
Ior rooIs (Class C structure)

: k
2
value is linearly interpolated Ior 12.68 m.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Area oI all the walls 567 2268 2835 m
2

Area oI all the openings 201.51.5 2 90 m
2

Opening area 3.17 , less than 5
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.2)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.00.931.0 43.71 m/s, Ior walls
47 1.0 0.957 1.0 44.98 m/s, Ior rooI
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)

p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (43.71)
2
1146.33 N/m
2
,
Ior walls
10 m

15
o
10 m

10 m

10 m

10 m

100 m

10 m

0
o

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
0.6 (44.98)
2
1213.87 N/m
2
, Ior rooI
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)
F (C
pe
-C
pi
) A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.1)

pi
0.2
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.1)
inside (reIer note 2 Sec 6.2.1) along-with external

Using Tables 4, 5 and 17
h
av
/ w 11.34/50 0.227 & l/w 100/50 2.0
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.4)

Pressure coeIIicients Ior rooI are tabulated in
Table 19-1.

Table 19.1
0
o
90
o
** 180
o
A 0.6 -0.5 -0.5
B -0.7 -0.3
C 0.7 -0.3
D -0.4 EG -0.75
-0.3
M -0.3 FH -0.6
-0.4
N -0.2 -0.6
X -0.1 -0.6
Z -0.3 -0.1
Y -0.2 -0.5 0.7

**: Values are Irom IS:875-pt.3, Table 4 & 5.

C
pe
Ior walls is taken Irom table 4 Ior h/w 0.5
and l/w 2 These are as Iollows:

Table 19.2
Wind angle Short Wall 50 m wide Long wall 100m long
0
o
-0.6 0.7/-0.25
90
o
0.7/-0.1 -0.5

made separately Ior all the surIaces, as under:

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

B C D M N X Z
0
o
wind, Cpi 0.2 -0.9 -0.9 0.5 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4
0
o
wind, Cpi -0.2 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.1
180
o
wind, Cpi 0.2 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.1 -0.8 -0.8 -0.3
180
o
wind, Cpi -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.4 0.1
90
o
wind, Cpi 0.2 -1.2
(end zones)
90
o
wind, Cpi -0.2 -0.8
(end zones)
90
o
wind, Cpi 0.2 -0.8
(mid zones)
90
o
wind, Cpi -0.2 -0.4
(mid zones)

Analysis oI truss is to be done Ior all above
combinations. Cladding and Iasteners are to be
designed Ior 1.1 or 0.7.


C
pe
will be combined with internal pressure
pi
0.2
C
pnet
Ior long Walls
0.7 (-0.2) 0.9, pressure
-0.5 (0.2) -0.7, suction
C
pnet
Ior Gable Walls
0.7 (-0.2) 0.9, pressure
-0.6 (0.2) -0.8, suction

Local coeIIicients Ior rooI: Maximum oI all the
values given in Table 6 & 17, i.e. 2.0 up to 0.1 x
100 10.0m on ends & 0.1 x 10m 1.0m at
ridges towards sloping side oI rooI. In this region
the Iasteners shall be designed to carry increased
Iorce calculated with C
pnet
-2.0 (0.2) -2.2

A
B
C
D
M
N
M
N X
Z
Y
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 20 - Wind Forces on a Free Standing Framed Compound
Wall with Barbed Wire Fencing at Top

Problem Statement:
Calculate wind pressure and design Iorces on a continuous compound wall 2.1m high in RC Irame and
masonry construction with barbed wire Iencing over it, as shown in Iigure 20.1, and located in Indore (MP)
to enclose a land piece near the Airport.

Figure 20.1
Solution:
Wind Data:
1. Wind Zone: Zone II (V
b
39m/s)
(IS:875.pt.3, Fig. 1, Sec 5.2)

2. Terrain category: Category 1 (open land)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)

Design Factors:
1
` 0.92*
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` 1.0 (Class-B)
(IS.875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

* : though table 1 mentions boundary walls to be
designed Ior 5 yrs. liIe, but considering 25 years oI
period Ior Iramed walls.

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

470.921.01.0 43.24 m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (43.24)
2
1236.805
N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

F C
f
A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3)

Wind Force on Barbed wire Iencing:
Assuming the solidity ratio oI wire Iencing and
angles 0.1
A
e
0.1 1.0 0.6 0.06m
2
, taking 1m length oI
wall.
C
f
1.9, Ior Ilat sided single member Irames
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.3.2(b), Table 26)
Force on wire Iencing per m length 1.9 0.06
1.122 0.128 kN
acting at 2.1 0.3 2.4m above ground.
Reduction Iactor K 1 is taken

Wind Force on wall:

Since the length oI wall is more than 100m, b/h
100/2.1 47.62 and the wall is Irom ground, C
f

1.55, aIter linear interpolation
(IS:875-pt.3, Table 24)

Design Wind Force on walls, thereIore
F 1.55 1.0 1.122 2.1 3.652 kN acting at
1.05m Irom ground.
Oblique wind eIIects as per 6.3.2.2 and now
considered necessary as the wall has l ~~ b.

3.0 m
2.1 m
1 m
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 21 - Wind Forces on a Sign Board Hoarding
Problem Statement:
Calculate wind pressure and design Iorces on a hoarding 10m long and 5m high, to be Iixed at the rooI oI a
24m high building near Cannaught Place area in New Delhi. The base oI the hoarding board is 2.0m above
the rooI level. See Iigure 21.1.

Figure 21.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875.pt.3, Fig. 1, Sec 5.2)
2. Terrain category: Category 3 (near City Center)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)

Design Factors:
1
` 0.71*
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` 1.05 (Class-4)**
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2, Table-2)
Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

* : considering design liIe oI 5 yrs.
**: For average height oI the hoarding, 28.5 m

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

470.711.051.0 35.04 m/s
24 m
0
o
1 m
2 m
5 m
10 m
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)

p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2
0.6 (35.04)
2
736.62 N/m
2

(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.4)

F C
f
A p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3)

Wind Force on Hoarding:
Since the length oI hoarding is 10m, b/h 10/5
2.0 and the hoarding is 2m above rooI, C
f
1.2
(IS:875-pt.3, Table 24)

Design Wind Force on hoarding, thereIore
F 1.2 1.0 0.7366 5.0 4.42 kN acting at (2
2.5) 4.5m above rooI

To allow Ior oblique winds, Iorce coeIIicients oI
1.7 and 0.44 are to be taken at two ends, as per
section 6.3.2.3.
Accordingly, 4.42 1.7/1.2 6.261 kN at
windward edge and
4.42 0.44/1.2 1.6206 kN at leeward edge shall
be considered, per meter width oI hoarding.

Pressure distribution
In vertical direction the wind Iorce may be
considered constant over the height.

The hoarding sheet will be designed Ior a Iorce oI
6.261/5 1.2522 kN/m
2

The Irame oI hoarding will be designed Ior
average pressure intensity depending on the
spacing oI vertical Irames.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 22: Wind Pressure and Forces on an Overhead Intze Type
RCC Water Tank on Framed Staging

Problem Statement:
Calculate design wind pressure on a circular overhead water tank oI Intze type, supported on a 12-column
staging 12m high, as shown in Iigure-22.1. The columns are 40 cm dia and the braces 20 cm 40 cm. The
tank is proposed to be constructed in a residential locality oI New Delhi.

12m

Figure 22.1
Solution:
Wind Data:
1.Wind Zone: Zone IV (J
b
47m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2, Fig. 1)
2.Terrain Category: A residential locality
corresponds to Terrain Category 3, as deIined in IS-
875
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)

Design Factors:
1
1.07
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
, varies with height and
is given in Table 22.1.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2,Table-2)
Topography Factor k
3
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b

k
1
k
2
k
3

471.07 k
2
1.0 (50.3 k
2
) m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)

External pressure coeIIicients Ior rooI and bottom oI
tank:
(:/H) 1 (19.5/7.5) 1 1.6
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.2.9, Table 19)

ThereIore, C
pe
-0.75 Ior rooI and 0.6 Ior bottom.
Eccentricity oI Iorce at rooI
0.1 x D 0.1 x 12 1.2m

Total Iorce acting on the rooI oI structure
P 0.785 x D
2
x (p
i
- C
pe
x p
d
)
0.785 x 12
2
x 0-(-.75) x 1.082}
91.732 kN acting upwards at 1.2m Irom center
oI dome
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.2.9)
Note: p
i
, the internal pressure inside the tank may be due
to any liquid stored or Ior water tanks where there is no
pressure due to stored water, internal pressure will be
generated due to small permeability which may exist due
to openings at rooI level e.g. in steel tanks. II no openings
exist, as in RCC water tanks, p
i
0.

RooI pressure will be used with Gravity loads Ior
design oI dome.
Bottom ring beam
400 600
4 m
2 m
1.5 m
8 m
12 m
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

Overall Horizontal Force on the Tank:
F C
f
x A
e
x p
d
(or p
z
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3, 6.3.3.1(c))
No horizontal Iorce will act on top dome. The eIIect
oI wind pressure on dome has been included in the
net vertical Iorce, as above, associated with an
eccentricity.

Cylindrical portion:
J
d
(avg) (46.27644.16)/2 45.218 m/s
J
d
x b 45.218x12 542 ~ 6,
h/b 4/12 0.333 0.5

ThereIore, C
f
0.7, Irom table 23(rough) &
p
z
1.50 at top & 1.393 at bottom.
This being a very small diIIerence, higher value may
be taken.
F
cvlinder
0.7 x 12 x 1.50
12.60 kN/m height

Conical bottom:
J
d
(avg) (44.1642.96)/2 43.56 m/s
J
d
x b 43.56x10 435 ~ 6,
h/b 2/10 0.2 0.50

ThereIore, C
f
0.7, Irom table 23 (rough) &

p
z
1.393 at top & 1.324 at bottom.
This being a very small diIIerence, higher value may
be taken.
F
conicaldome
0.7 x 10 x 1.393
9.571 kN/m height
Staging:
p
d
1.257 kN/m
2
up to 10m
1.324 kN/m
2
above 10m height.

In order to calculate the wind Iorce on columns,
each column is considered as an individual member
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3.3.1c, table 23) and no shielding
eIIect is considered on leeward columns, as the
columns are placed Iar apart on periphery only .

ThereIore, Ior one column:
J
d
x b 42.96x0.4 17.2 ~ 6
h/b 11.4/0.4 28.5 ~ 20
ThereIore, C
f
1.2, Irom table 23 Ior rough surIace
Iinish.
F
column
1.2 x 0.4 x 1.257
0.603 kN/m height, up to 10m height
F
column
1.2 x 0.4 x 1.324
0.6355 kN/m height, above10m height

F
bracings
1.0 x 2 x (8.0-7x.4)} x 1.257
13.072 kN/m height, acting at two brace
levels, 4m and 8m. This is calculated considering it
as an individual member and using table 23 with h/b
ratio 2. (Assuming 0.2x0.4m size braces)

F
ringbeam
1.0 x 8.0 x 1.324
10.592 kN/m height, as above.

Note: C
I
values taken Irom Table 23 are Ior members oI
inIinite length. Reduction Iactors Ior Iinite length oI
container, columns and other members can be taken Irom
Table 25, which will Iurther reduce wind Iorces.

****************************

Table 22.1: Calculations of Variation in Design Wind Speed & Pressure with Height (Class-A)

Height Irom k
2
* J
Z
p
Z
(or p
d
)
Ground, m m/s kN/m
2

Up to 10m 0.91 45.773 1.257
12m 0.934 406.98 1.324
14m 0.958 48.187 1.393
18m 0.994 50.00 1.50
* : k
2
values are linearly interpolated.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Table 22.2: Summary of forces and total loads on tank

Element Force per unit
height
Height of
element
Total horiz-ontal
force
CG of
force
from
ground
Cylindrical portion 12.60 kN 4.0m 50.4 kN 16.00m
Conical Dome 9.751 kN 2.0m 19.50 kN 13.067m
Top Ring Beam 10.592 kN 0.6m 6.355 kN 11.7m
All Columns above
10m
0.6355 kN
x 12 7.626 kN
1.4m 10.676 kN 10.7m
All Columns up to
10m
0.603 kN
x 12 7.236 kN
10m 72.36 kN 5.0m
Braces, upper level 13.072 kN 0.4m 5.229 kN 8.0m
Braces, lower level 13.072 kN 0.4m 5.229 kN 4.0m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 23: Wind Pressure and Forces on a Square Overhead
RCC Water Tank on Framed Staging

Problem Statement:
Calculate design wind pressure on a square overhead RCC water tank oI size 12m x 12m supported on a 16-
column Iramed staging 12m high, as shown in Iigure-23.1. The columns are 400mm square and the braces
20 cm 40 cm. The tank is proposed to be constructed in a residential locality oI New Delhi.

Figure 23.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2, Fig. 1)
corresponds to Terrain Category 3, as deIined in
IS-875
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)

Design Factors:
1
1.07
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
, varies with height
and is given in Table 23.1.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2,Table-2)
Topography Factor k
3
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Design Wind Speed` J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.07 k
2
1.0 (50.3 k
2
) m/s
(IS.875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)

External pressure coeIIicients Ior rooI and bottom
oI tank:*
(:/H) 1 (16/4.0) 1 3.0
H/D 4/12 0.333
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.3.8, Table 15)
*: as there is no direct mention about square or
rectangular tanks, parameters Irom diIIerent clauses oI
code are to be taken.

ThereIore, C
pe
0.65 Ior rooI & 0.6 Ior
bottom.
Eccentricity oI Iorce at rooI 0.1 D
0.1 12 1.2m

4 m

12 m
Plan of framed staging
12m
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
The total Iorce acting on the rooI oI the tank
A
e
(p
i
C
pe
p
d
) 12120-(-0.65) 1.35}
126.36 kN acting upwards at 1.2 m Irom center.

Note: p
i
, the internal pressure inside the tank may be
due to any liquid stored or Ior water tanks where there
is no pressure due to stored water, internal pressure
will be generated due to small permeability which may
exist due to openings at rooI level e.g. in steel tanks. II
no openings exist, as in RCC water tanks, p
i
0.

design oI slab.

F C
f
x A
e
x p
d
(or p
z
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3, 6.3.3.1(c))

Container portion:
b/d 1, V
d
b 49.19 12 590~10, H/b0.33
C
I
0.5, Irom table 23, Ior rough Iinish.

F
container
0.5 12 1.451
8.706 kN/m height

Staging:
The staging is multiple bay Iramed type and
cl.6.3.3.3 with table 28 and cl.6.3.3.4 with
table 29 are thereIore applied. Solidity ratio
oI one Irame (4 0.4 12 10.4 0.4
2)/ (12 12) 0.19
C
I
1.8, Ior windward Irame members.
Shielding EIIect on leeward Irame:
Frame- spacing ratio 4.0/0.4 10 1.0
Hence no shielding occurs.

Alternatively considering each column/bracing as
an individual member, Ior columns:
J
d
x b 42.960.4 17.2 ~ 10
h/b 12/0.4 30 ~ 20
ThereIore, C
f
1.2, Irom table 23 Ior rough
surIace Iinish. The higher value oI C
I
i.e. 1.8 is
used

F
column
1.8 0.4 1.257
F
column
1.8 0.4 1.324
0.953 kN/m height, above10m height

Ior Bracings:
J
d
x b 42.96 0.4 17.2
h/b 0.4/3.466 0.155 2
ThereIore, C
f
1.0, Irom table 23 Ior rough
surIace Iinish.

F
bracings
1.0 3(12.0-4 0.4)} 1.257
39.22 kN/m height, acting at two brace
levels, 4m and 8m.
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Table 23.1: Calculations of Variation in Design Wind Speed & Pressure with Height (Class-4)

Height Irom k
2
* J
Z
p
Z

Ground, m m/s kN/m
2

Up to 10m 0.91 45.774 1.257
12m 0.934 46.98 1.324
16m 0.978 49.19 1.451
k
2

Table 23.2: Summary of forces and total loads on tank
height
Height of
element
Total horiz-ontal
force
CG of force from
ground
Container portion 8.706 kN 4.0m 34.82 kN 14.0m
All Columns above
10m
0.953 kN
16 15.248kN
2.0m 30.496 kN 11.0m
All Columns up to 10m 0.905 kN
16 14.48 kN
10m 144.80 kN 5.0m
Braces, upper level 39.22 kN 0.4m 15.688 kN 8.0m
Braces, lower level 39.22 kN 0.4m 15.688 kN 4.0m

``````````````````````

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 24: Wind Pressure and Forces on an Overhead Intze Type
RCC Water Tank on Shaft Staging

Problem Statement:
Calculate design wind pressures on a circular overhead water tank oI Intze type, supported on an RC shaIt
staging 12m high, as shown in Iigure 24.1. The tank is proposed to be constructed in a residential locality oI
New Delhi.

Figure 24.1
Solution:
Wind Data:
b
47m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2 Fig. 1)
corresponds to Terrain Category 3.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
Design Factors:
1
1.07
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
Varies with height,
and is given in Table 23.1
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.2,Table-2)
Topography Factor k
3
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.07 k
2
1.0 (50.3 k
2
) m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)

External pressure coeIIicients Ior rooI oI tank:
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.2.9)
(:/H) 1 (19.5/7.5) 1 1.6
(IS:875-pt.3, Table 19)

ThereIore, C
pe
-0.75 Ior rooI
Eccentricity oI Iorce at rooI
0.1 x D 0.1 x 12 1.2m

Total vertical Iorce acting on the rooI oI structure
P 0.785 x D
2
x (p
i
- C
pe
x p
d
)
0.785 x 12
2
x 0-(-.75) x 1.082}
91.732 kN acting upwards at 1.2m Irom center
oI dome
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.2.2.9)

Note: p
i
, the internal pressure inside the tank may be due
to any liquid stored or Ior water tanks where there is no
pressure due to stored water, internal pressure will be
generated due to small permeability which may exist due
to openings at rooI level e.g. in steel tanks. II no
openings exist, as in RCC water tanks, p
i
0.

design oI dome.

F C
f
x A
e
x p
d
(or p
z
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3, 6.3.3.1(c))

4 m
2 m
1.5 m
12 m
12 m
8m (o/o)
RCC ShaIt
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
No horizontal Iorce will act on top dome. The
eIIect oI wind pressure on dome has been included
in the net vertical Iorce, as above, associated with
an eccentricity.

Cylindrical portion:
J
d
(avg) (46.27644.16)/2 45.218 m/s
J
d
x b 45.218x12 542 ~ 6,
h/b 4/12 0.333 0.5
ThereIore, C
f
0.7, Irom table 23, Ior rough
surIace &
p
z
1.50 at top & 1.393 at bottom
This being a very small diIIerence, higher value
may be taken.

F
cvlinder
0.7 x 12 x 1.50
12.6 kN/m height

Conical bottom:
J
d
(avg) (44.1642.96)/2 43.56 m/s
J
d
x b 43.56x10 435 ~ 6,
h/b 2/10 0.2 0.5
ThereIore, C
f
surIace &

p
z
1.393 at top & 1.324 at bottom

This being a very small diIIerence, higher value
may be taken.
F
conicaldome
0.7 x 10 x 1.393
9.571 kN/m height
Staging:
ShaIt is considered as circular member with rough
at surIace Ior which
J
d
x b 42.96x8.0 343 ~ 6,
h/b 12.0/8.0 1.5
ThereIore, C
f
surIace
F
shaft
0.7 x 8.0 x 1.257

F
shaft
0.7 x 8.0 x 1.324 7.414 kN/m height,
above10m height

Note: C
I
values taken Irom Table 23 are Ior members oI
inIinite length. Reduction Iactors Ior Iinite length oI
container, columns and other members can be taken
Irom Table 25, which will Iurther reduce wind Iorces.
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987

Table 24.1: Calculations of variation in design wind speed & pressure with height
Height Irom k
2
* J
Z
p
Z

Ground, m m/s kN/m
2

Up to 10m 0.91 45.773 1.257
12m 0.934 46.98 1.324
14m 0.958 48.187 1.393
18m 0.994 50.00 1.50
* : k
2

Table 24.2: Summary of Forces and Total Loads on Tank
height
Height of
element
Total horizontal
force
CG of force from
ground
Cylindrical portion 12.6 kN 4.0m 50.4 kN 16.00m
Conical Dome 9.757 kN 2.0m 19.50 kN 13.067m
ShaIt above 10m 7.414 kN 2.0m 14.828 kN 11.0m
ShaIt up to 10m 7.04 kN 10.0m 70.4 kN 5.0m

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 25 - Wind Pressure and Forces on a Multistory
Commercial Complex by Force Coefficient
Method
Problem Statement:
Calculate design wind Iorces using Iorce coeIIicient method on a RCC Multistory commercial
complex 12m18m51m tall situated in Mumbai. It is proposed to be constructed about 200m
inside the sea Iront. Take average story height as 3.0m and Irames spaced 6m c/c in both
directions. The building is oriented with its smaller dimension Iacing the sea, i.e. in long-
aIterbody orientation.

Figure 25.1(a) Figure 25.1 (b)
Solution:

Wind Data:
1. Wind Zone: Zone III (J
b
44m/s)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.2, Fig. 1)
2. Terrain category: (IS:875-pt.3, Sec
5.3.2.1)
This building shares special location
characteristics. On one Iace, i.e. sea Iace,
it is exposed to terrain category 1
transiting into terrain category 3 Irom
200m distance. On the other hand, other
Iaces are exposed to terrain category 4,
being located in a commercially developed
area with tall structures oI height
exceeding 25m.
ThereIore, we have to calculate a
combined wind proIile as per AppendixB
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.4), transition Irom
terrain category 1 to terrain category 3, Ior
one wind direction and consider terrain
category 4 Ior other three directions.
Calculating combined wind proIile Ior TC
1 to TC3
This may be determined using IS:875-pt.3,
Sec. 5.3.2.4(b). There are two options but
option (ii) will give more rational values
and thereIore, should be used.
Fetch Length x
3
200m, developed
height in
TC 3, h
3
35m (IS:875-pt.3,
Table 3)

ThereIore, up-to 35m height, k
2
Iactor
shall be as per TC 3 and above 35m it will
be as per TC 1 Ior wind Irom sea Iront.
For all other directions k
2
is as per TC1.

Design Factors:
1
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
5
1

m

18 m
12 m
Sea Front
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
2
Varies with
height and terrain category, as given in
Table 25.1.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2, Table-2)
Topography Factor k
3
1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Design Wind Speed J
Z
J
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.0 k
2
1.0 (47 k
2
) m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3
)

Table 25.1 : Calculations of Variation in Design Wind Speed with Height

Height from k
2
` J
Z
(m/s)
ground, m For sea For other For sea For other
face
faces** face faces

Up to 9m 0.82 0.67 38.54 31.49
12m 0.84 0.67 39.48 31.49
15m 0.87 0.67 40.89 31.49
18m 0.894 0.67 42.02 31.49
21m 0.915 0.686 43.005 32.242
24m 0.93 0.734 43.71 34.50
27m 0.945 0.782 44.41 36.754
30m 0.96 0.83 45.12 39.01
33m 0.969 0.848 45.543 39.856
36m 1.105
0.866 1.935 40.70

39m 1.1125 0.884 52.2875 41.548
42m 1.12 0.902 52.64 42.394
45m 1.1275 0.92 53.00 43.24
48m 1.135 0.938 53.345 44.086
51m 1.1412 0.952 53.636 44.744

* : k
2
: For terrain category 1 transiting to Category 3
** : For terrain category 4
: EIIect oI terrain category changes Irom TC-3 to TC-1 above this height.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Table 25.2: Calculations of Variation in Design Pressure with Height

Height from p
Z
(kN/m
2
) p
d
, for cladding
ground, m Sea face Other face All faces` (Class -A)
Up to 9m 0.891 0.595 1.097
12m 0.935 0.595 1.155
15m 1.003 0.595 1.247
18m 1.059 0.595 1.309
21m 1.109 0.623 1.364
24m 1.146 0.714 1.405
27m 1.183 0.810 1.447
30m 1.221 0.913 1.489
33m 1.244 0.953 1.517
36m 1.618 0.994 1.796
39m 1.640 1.036 1.82
42m 1.662 1.078 1.845
45m 1.685 1.122 1.870
48m 1.707 1.166 1.895
51m 1.726 1.201 1.916
Notes: For cladding, only higher wind speed is used Ior all Iour Iaces. However, the designer may
choose to vary it Irom Iace to Iace.

Wind Induced Lateral Force on
Structure:
This will be calculated at every story level
and separately Ior each wind direction,
three cases in this problem.
F C
f
A
e
p
d
( p
:
)
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 6.3)
Force coefficient calculations:
Long-aIterbody orientation
a/b 18/12 1.5, h/b 51/12 4.25
C
f
1.2
(IS:875-pt.3, Fig. 4)
Short-aIterbody orientation
a/b 12/18 0.667, h/b 51/18 2.833
C
f
1.35
(IS:875-pt.3, Fig. 6)

Effective area (A
e
) calculations:

6.0 3.0 18m
2
, Ior storey level nodes on
intermediate Irames
3.0 3.0 9m
2
end Irames

For Cladding: depending on the spacing oI
supporting structure, but the eIIect oI
enhanced Iorce at the corners and edges
should be considered Ior Iasteners by
taking local coeIIicients Irom IS:875-pt.3,
Table 4.

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Table 25.3 : Storeywise Wind Forces, in kN

Sea Face Opp. Sea Face Wider Faces Level Height from
ground (m) End
Frames
Middle
Frames
End
Frames
Middle
Frames
End
Frames
Middle
Frames
1 3 9.623 19.246 6.426 12.852 7.23 14.46
2 6 9.623 19.246 6.426
3 9 9.623 19.243 6.426
4 12 10.10 20.2 6.426
5 15 10.83 21.66 6.426
6 18 11.44 22.88 6.426 12.852 7.23 14.46
7 21 11.98 23.96 6.73 13.46 7.57 15.14
8 24 12.38 24.76 7.711 15.422 8.675 17.35
9 27 12.78 25.56 8.75 17.5 7.84 19.68
10 30 13.187 26.374 9.86 19.72 11.093 22.186
11 33 13.435 26.87 10.292 20.584 11.58 23.16
12 36 17.474 34.950 10.735 21.74 12.077 24.254
13 39 17.712 35.474 11.19 22.38 12.587 25.174
14 42 17.950 35.90 11.64 23.28 13.10 26.2
15 45 18.20 36.4 12.118 24.236 13.632 27.264
16 48 18.436 36.872 12.60 25.20 14.167 28.334
17 51 18.64 37.28 12.971 25.942 14.592 29.184

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Example 26 - Wind Pressure and Forces on a Multistory
Commercial Complex by Gust Factor Approach

Problem Statement:
Calculate design wind Iorces using the gust Iactor approach on a RCC Multistory building 12m 24m
96m tall, as in Iigure 26.1, situated in Mumbai. It is proposed to be constructed about 200m inside the sea
Iront. Take average story height as 3.0m and Irames spaced 6m c/c in both directions. The building is
oriented with its smaller dimension Iacing the sea, i.e. in long-aIterbody orientation.

Figure 26.1

Solution:
Wind Data:
Since the ratio oI height to least lateral dimension
is more than 5, (96/12 8) dynamic analysis is
needed.
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 7.1)

1. Wind Zone: Zone III (V
b
44m/s)
(IS:875.pt.3, Fig. 1, Sec 5.2)
2. Terrain category:
(S:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2.1)
This building shares special location
characteristics. On one Iace, i.e. sea Iace it is
exposed to terrain category 1 transiting into
terrain category 3 Irom 200m distance. On the
other hand, other Iaces are exposed to terrain
category 4, being located in a commercially
developed area.
ThereIore, we have to calculate a combined wind
proIile as per AppendixB (IS:875-pt.3, Sec
5.3.2.4), transition Irom terrain category 1 to
terrain category 3, Ior one wind direction and
consider terrain category 4 Ior other three
directions.
Calculating combined wind proIile Ior TC 1 to
TC3
This may be determined using IS:875-pt.3, sec.
5.3.2.4(b). There are two options but option (ii)
will give more rational values and thereIore,
should be used.

Fetch Length x
3
200m, developed height in TC3,
h
3
35m (IS:875-pt.3, Table 3)
ThereIore, up to 35m heights, k2 Iactor shall be as
per TC 3 and above 35m it will be as per TC 1.

96 m
24 m
12 m
Sea Front
|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
Design Factors:
1
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.1, Table-1)
2
` Varies with height
and terrain category, as in Table 25.1
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.2, Table-2)

Topography Iactor k
3
` 1.00
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3.3.1)

Design Wind Speed V
Z
V
b
k
1
k
2
k
3

471.0 k
2
1.0 (47 k
2
) m/s
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 5.3)
p
Z
0.6 (J
Z
)
2

Table 26.1 : Variation in Design Wind Speed & Design Pressure with height (based on
hourly mean wind speed : Table 33, IS:875, pt-3-1987

k
2
` v
z
(m/s) p
z
(kN/m
2
) Height
from
Ground, m
Sea Face
Other
Faces**
Sea Face Other
Faces
Sea Face Other
Faces
Upto 9 m 0.50 0.24 23.5 11.28 0.331 0.076
at 12 m 0.52 0.24 24.4 11.28 0.357 0.076
18 0.574 0.24 26.98 11.28 0.437 0.076
24 0.61 0.28 28.67 13.16 0.493 0.104
30 0.64 0.34 30.08 15.98 0.543 0.153
36 0.895
0.373 42.065 17.531 1.062 0.184

42 0.91 0.406 42.77 19.082 1.097 0.218
48 0.925 0.44 43.475 20.68 1.134 0.257
54 0.935 0.46 43.945 21.62 1.160 0.280
60 0.942 0.474 44.274 22.278 1.176 0.298
66 0.950 0.488 44.65 22.936 1.196 0.315
72 0.956 0.503 44.932 23.641 1.211 0.335
78 0.964 0.517 45.31 24.30 1.232 0.354
84 0.971 0.532 45.637 25.004 1.250 0.375
90 0.978 0.546 45.966 25.662 1.268 0.395
96 0.985 0.560 46.295 26.32 1.286 0.416
* : k
2
: For terrain category 1 transiting to Category 2
** : For terrain category 4
: EIIect oI terrain category changes Irom TC-3 to TC-1 above this height.

Wind Induced Lateral Forces on Structure:

This will be calculated at every story level and
separately Ior each wind direction, Ior the three
cases in this problem.
F C
f
A
e
p
d
G
(IS:875-pt.3, Sec 8.3)

Force coefficient calculations:
Long-aIterbody orientation
a/b 24/12 2.0, h/b 96/12 8.0 C
f
1.25
(IS:875-pt.3, Fig. 4)

Short-aIterbody orientation
a/b 12/24 0.5, h/b 96/24 4.0 C
I
1.40
(IS:875-pt.3, Fig. 4)

Effective area calculations:
6.0 3.0 18m
2
intermediate Irames
3.0 3.0 9m
2
, Ior storey level nodes on end
Irames

For Cladding: depending on the spacing oI
supporting structure. But the eIIect oI enhanced
Iorce at the corners and edges should be
considered by taking local coeIIicients Irom

Along Wind Response :
Gust Iactor Calculations:
Case-1: when wind is on sea Iace : (i.e. long
aIter-body orientation)
h 96 m, b 12 m, d 24m
The Iundamental natural period T`
d
h 09 . 0

|xanp|cs cn |S 875(Par| 3).1987
T
24
96 09 . 0
1.764 secs I
0
1/T
0.567 Hz
G 1 g
I
. r ( )
+ +
SE
1 B |
2

Gust Iactor calculations corresponding to top oI
building are as under :

104 . 0
96 12
12 10
h . C
b . C
z
y
=
= =
11 . 14
295 . 46
96 567 . 0 12
V
h . I . C
F
h
0 z
0
=

= =
Now Irom Fig. 8
g
I
. r 0.75 and L(h) 2000, Ior Terrain
Category 1

50 . 24
V
) h ( L I
& 567 . 0
2000
96 12
) h ( L
h . C
h
0 z
= =
=

B 0.72 (approx.), Irom Fig. 9
0 , S 0.135 (Irom Fig. 10)
E 0.065 (approx.) Irom Fig. 11
0.16, Irom Table 34
G 1 0.75 66 . 1
16 . 0
065 . 0 135 . 0
72 . 0 =
+

Case-2: When wind is on wider Iace : (i.e. short
aIter-body orientation, Terrain Category -4)
h 96 m, b 24 m, d 12m
The Iundamental natural period T`
d
h 09 . 0

T
12
96 09 . 0
2.494 secs I
0
0.401 Hz
208 . 0
96 12
24 10
h . C
b . C
z
y
=
= =
544 . 17
32 . 26
96 401 . 0 12
V
h . I . C
F
h
0 z
0
=

= =
g
I
. r 1.75 and L(h) 1250, Irom Fig. 8, Ior
TC - 4

04 . 19
32 . 26
1250 401 . 0
V
) h ( L I
& 9216 . 0
1250
96 12
) h ( L
h . C
h
0
z
=
=
=
=

0 , S 0.08 (approx) Irom Fig. 10
0.16, Irom Table 34
G 1 0.75 45 . 2
16 . 0
075 . 0 08 . 0
65 . 0 =
+

Case-3: When wind is on narrow Iace opp. To sea
Iace (LAB orientation), Terrain Category -4)
h 96 m, b 12 m, d 24m
The Iundamental natural period
T` 1.764 secs I
0
0.567 Hz
104 . 0
96 12
12 10
h . C
b . C
z
y
=
= =
80 . 24
32 . 26
96 567 . 0 12
V
h . I . C
F
h
0 z
0
=

= =
g
I
. r 1.75 and L(h) 1250, Irom Fig. 8, Ior
TC - 4

92 . 26
32 . 26
1250 567 . 0
V
) h ( L I
& 9216 . 0
1250
96 12
) h ( L
h . C
h
0
z
=
=
=
=

0 , S 0.08 (approx) Irom Fig. 10
0.16, Irom Table 34
G 1 0.75 44 . 2
16 . 0
06 . 0 08 . 0
65 . 0 =
+
Note: Storeywise wind Iorces on diIIerent Iaces can be
calculated using G. F C
I
A
e
p
d
G, as in
example25.

|xanp|cs cn lind |cads-1987

Some Unusual Cases for the Determination of Wind Forces
on Buildings/Structures

Situations mav occur where the provisions of the code do not provide direct answers or the
answers are incomplete or ambiguous. Some such situations have been identified and discussed in this
section. The answers are however onlv suggestive, as unique situations mav rarelv arise. Bearing this
in mind, the following answers mav be considered as advisorv opinions. In manv cases it would be
desirable to carrv out wind tunnel studies for getting better answers.

Case 1(a):A building with two levels of
roofs, one considerably higher
than the other, is shown in Fig. 1.
What shall be the mean roof level
for determining wind pressures
on the low roof and the walls ?

It is diIIicult to get straightIorward
guidance Ior this type oI situation.
Pressures on walls and rooIs occur
due to the Ilow pattern generated
around the structure. It may be
appropriate to base the pressures
on the windward side on the lower
height h
1
. However, Ior the
leeward side, since the wake
created by the separation Irom the
taller rooI may envelope the entire
leeward side, the pressures may be
based on the height oI the taller
rooI h
2
.

Figure 1 : A low building with a tower.
This would probably be true, iI the
low rooI extends only Ior a small
distance, say one bay, on either
side oI the higher structure. In
structures where the low rooI
extends much Iurther Irom the
tower, it might be justiIied to
consider the mean rooI height as
the height oI the low rooI Ior rooI
B
h
1

h
2

Lower RooI
Tower RooI
L
X


areas some distance away Irom the
higher rooI.

It is however suggested that, in all
cases, the height oI the taller rooI
may be taken as the 'mean rooI
height, which would lead to
conservative values but perhaps
not too much.
Case 1(b) : What would be
the distribution of the wind
pressures over the lower roof in
the building of Figure-1 ?
The pressures on the lower rooI
may vary signiIicantly. It will
however, be conservative to use
the height oI the higher rooI (h
2
)
to calculate the leeward pressure.
For a point such as X, the actual
pressures would more likely be
based on the height oI the lower
rooI (h
1
), since it is located
relatively Iar Irom the potential
wake oI wind around the tower.
As a general rule the wind
pressures Ior points located within
a distance oI the width oI the
tower (B or L depending on wind
direction) might be based
considering h
2
as the mean rooI
height. For other points design
wind pressures might be based on
lower rooI height h
1
taken as the
mean rooI height.

Figure 2 : Building with a courtyard
Case 2 :A building with a courtyard is
shown in Figure 2. How would
the courtyard affect the wind
pressures? What height shall be
used for the pressures on the low
building, h
1
or h
2
? Will the size
of the courtyard affect the
pressure distribution?

For wind blowing in the direction
()X, the wall oI the low building
will experience positive pressures
and the rooI will have negative
pressures (suction). The operative
height will be the height h
1
. The
inner courtyard walls will also
experience pressure because oI the
obstruction Irom the taller
building. For the wind direction (-
)X, the lower building rooI as well
as the outer wall will be subject to
suction, with the inner walls being
(- X)
( X)
h
2
h
1
Courtyard

under pressure, because oI the
wake oI the taller building. The
applicable height will be h
2
. The
leeward wall oI the taller building
will also have suction.

II the courtyard is large, the two
buildings will tend to act
independently. For small
courtyards, the position as
described above will prevail, by
and large.

Figure 3 : Building with balconies and overhanging eaves
Case 3 :A structure with balcony and
eaves is shown in Figure 3. What
pressures will act on the balcony
and the eaves?

For the wind direction shown, the
pressure on the bottom surIace oI
the balcony would be acting
upwards and the pressure on the
upper surIace would be acting
downwards so that, the net
pressure would be small.

For wind blowing parallel to the
balconies, there would be an
upward pressure as in case oI an
open structure.

The eaves will have a net upliIt
Iorce due to a combination oI the
upward pressure on the bottom
surIace and suction on the rooI
surIace. This is explained by the
Ilow-separation as the wind below
the eave surIace gets obstructed by
the wall in the Iront.

Figure 4 : Partially enclosed garages
Wind pressure
on eave
Wall with
increased
pressure
A
A
A A

Case 4 : Figure 4 shows a two-story
building which has a partially
closed story at the ground floor
for parking. What would be the
pressure on the walls of the
ground floor?
It would be prudent to consider an
increased C
p
Ior the design oI
these garage walls as well as the
low rooI, which is also subjected
to the increased internal pressures.
The best estimate oI this increase
can be reached by considering the
bottom story as a building with a
large opening.
.

Figure 5 : Stair tower at a water front.
Case 5(a):A stair tower at a waterfront
park is within 5m of a large
body of water. It is 2 m tall, 1
wide, and open on all sides. How
should the wind pressure be
evaluated on this structure ?
IS code provides Ior a maximum
increase oI 36 in the wind
velocity (given by Iactor k
3
) close
to a hill or an escarpment. In all
the elements oI the stair tower, the
increase in wind velocity due to
Iactor k
3
should be considered in
order to account Ior the vertical
Ilow oI wind up the Iace oI the
hill/escarpment. Since the
structure is open type, Iorce
coeIIicients may be used Ior
overall design treating it as an
open Irame. The vertical pressures
may be obtained Ior the stairs as
well as the rooI treating them as
inclined or Ilat surIaces. Higher
pressures should be taken at the
edges and corners.

Case 5(b):1he structure being close to
sea and thus exposed to salt water
spray, its design life may be
reduced to say 15 years, which is
much less than 5 or 1 years
period normally considered in the
design. What wind velocity shall
be considered for reduced life of
the structure ?

One way oI looking at the
problem is to consider a reduced
liIe and thus a reduced design
wind velocity. The other
alternative is to introduce
provisions Ior saIeguarding the
material Irom the eIIects oI
exposure to salted air, so that the
structure has a longer liIe. Perhaps
the latter is preIerable.
Case :Do structures placed at the crests
of hills and escarpments
experience increased wind speeds
?

It is well established that wind
velocities increase over hills and
escarpments. That is why
windmills are placed on tops oI
hills. There have been more
Iailures oI transmission towers
located on hills than elsewhere.
20 m
50 m

Results Irom wind tunnel studies
also provide conIirmation oI this
speedup phenomenon. More
Iailures are reported due to wind
Ior buildings on hills than in
plains Ior similar type oI
buildings.

Case 7 :What if a building owner cuts
down all the trees that gave the
site a lower level of exposure
during the process of design and
now is transformed to higher
exposure. Should the structure be
upgraded ?
The IS Code does not explicitly
require that the building be
upgraded to the higher exposure.
Perhaps the only exception would
be iI the trees were cut down
beIore construction began and the
designer had the opportunity to
examine the design Ior possible
upgradation.

Case 8 :Figure shows parapets on a
building. How should the forces
on parapets be evaluated for the
design of the main frame ?

Forces will be as shown in the Iigure.

Figure 6: Pressures on parapet

An Explanatory Handbook On Is 875 Part 1987

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

An Explanatory Handbook On Is 875 Part 1987

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Docunenl No. :: IITK-CSDMA-WindO7-V1.

Positive internal pressure will act towards the rooI

Ior rooIs (Class C structure)

faces** face faces

0.866 1.935 40.70

0.373 42.065 17.531 1.062 0.184

S-ar putea să vă placă și