Indonesian Society of Civil and Structural Engineers / HAKI Conference 2011 Best Practice Guidelines for the use

of Wind Tunnel Testing in the Structural Design of Buildings Mark P. Chatten

1

Abstract: The skylines of SE Asian cities already look radically different to that of the recent past. A combination of powerful economic and demographic drivers combined with the creative design possibilities unleashed by BIM and 3D CAD software suggests that the skylines of the future will increasingly be characterized by buildings with increasingly tall and bold architectural forms. This paper examines the wind engineering phenomena of relevance to such buildings and outlines practical guidelines that can be referenced by practicing structural engineers to identify when boundary later wind tunnel testing is recommended. ---------------------------------------------------------------1.0 Introduction: In SE Asia powerful economic and demographic drivers - combined with the creative design possibilities unleashed by BIM and 3D CAD software is resulting in urban developments with increasingly tall and bold architectural forms. Only a decade ago slender tall towers or mid-rise buildings with architectural features such as an openings through the building, complex curved facades and skybridges would have been considered unusual; now such designs are considered the norm. As expectations of architects and clients shift it is necessary for the structural engineer working on the project to keep pace and ensure the performance, safety and economy of the buildings structural and faade system. This is a challenge as many of the worlds building codes, including the Indonesias SKBI 1.3.53-1987, lag behind the rapid advancements of architectural design and do not contain the necessary guidance to address the technical challenges associated such buildings. This paper explores the wind engineering phenomena of relevance and outlines practical guidelines that can be referenced by practicing structural engineers to identify when state-of-the-art boundary layer wind tunnel testing is required. 2.0 Analytical Wind Load Methodology in Building Codes: In the interests of simplicity and ensuring public safety the minimum wind loads provided in most international building codes are general and, typically, conservative in nature. They are derived from academic research based on full-scale measurements and wind tunnel studies of a range of building shapes that were common in the 1960s and 1970s tested in the absence of adjacent structures. Such building shapes include simple box type forms similar to those illustrated in building code. Over time the more advanced international codes have been continuously upgraded based on additional wind tunnel data, full scale measurements and other information sources including analytical methods, computational fluid dynamics and damage survey data. However the guidance in the Indonesian Building Code (SKBI 1.3.53-1987) lags behind the most up to date wind engineering knowledge. It is therefore recommended that that structural engineer in Indonesia also considers modern versions of the major international building codes, such as the American Standard (ASCE 7-10), Canadian Code (NBC 2005) and Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS1170.2 2002), to gain the benefit of more updated design guidance. While these simple box type shapes are still prevalent amongst the majority of structures today, there are a significant proportion of buildings located in complex surroundings (e.g. central business districts with multiple skyscrapers) or signature buildings with bold architecture designs. For such situations

Mark P. Chatten, MICE, C.Eng., PE is a Project Director with RWDI in their Shanghai Office. RWDIs headquarters is located at: 650 Woodlawn Road West, Guelph, Ontario, Canada Tel: +1.519.823.1311, Fax: +1.519.823.1316 www.rwdi.com Mark.Chatten@rwdi.com; http://cn.linkedin.com/in/markpchatten

relying on the minimum wind loads provided by the analytical method provided in the building code may be conservative, or in certain circumstances unconservative (unsafe). 3.0 Guidelines when to do a wind tunnel test: Most codes and standards include wording that recognizes the limitations of analytical derived design wind loads and provide guidance when more advanced studies are required. However such wording is missing in the Indonesian Building Code (SKBI 1.3.53-1987) and other codes prevalent in the region, leading often to incompletely informed developers and sometimes design professionals to believe that a building that is subject to unusual wind effects or is dynamically-sensitive can be safely designed using the building code analytical methodology, or that wind tunnel testing is merely optional. Such an understanding is unsound and will likely lead to false economy. One is therefore recommended to look elsewhere for guidance. The American Building Code is one of the most advanced building codes worldwide and has language that provides clear direction when more advanced study or investigations such as a wind tunnel study is required (ASCE 7-10, C26.1.2). The wording provided in the ASCE 7-10 can relied upon to define situations and shapes of buildings where more advanced wind engineering study or investigations is necessary. Such wording makes it very clear to the engineer, owner and government checking authorities that buildings that fall outside the limitations of the analytical wind load methodology cannot be designed using this approach as it may result in unconservative (unsafe) wind loads. Consistent with the guidelines provided in this document, the following are types of structures and situations that generally require either advanced engineering study or wind tunnel studies by a qualified wind engineering consultant. 3.1 Channeling and Wake Effects: Wind tunnel studies are recommended for structures whose site location makes them subject to channeling effects caused by topographical features (e.g. mountain gorge) or buildings (e.g. neighboring tall buildings such as a central business district). In such situations the wind velocity from certain wind directions will be locally accelerated as the flow is squeezed between the upwind obstructions causing increased wind loading on the nearby structures.

Figure 1: Situation where channeling will occur from certain wind directions.

Figure 2: Situation where wake buffeting occurred on building C from upwind building D.

Wind tunnel studies are also recommended for situations when wake buffeting may exist due to significant upwind obstructions such as hills or signif icant upwind buildings. The wake is an aerodynamic term that describes a turbulent fluid region on the downstream side of a body, where strong eddies are generated which may impose critical fluctuating wind loads on structures downstream especially if the frequency content of turbulence excites the resonant frequency of the downstream structure. This wake buffeting can be very important for slender towers and other dynamically sensitive structures where overall structural wind loads can be increased dramatically.

B a s e S w a y M o m e n t, M x o n T o w e r C ( N - m )

B a s e T o r s io n a l M o m e n t o n T o w e r C ( N - m )

Figure 3 illustrates a typical example where a tower (B) causes a significant increase in overall structural loads on tower (D). In similar situations relying on the design wind loads provided by the analytical method would result in an unsafe structural design.
2E+08 1E+08 5E+07 0E+00 -5E+07 -1E+08 -2E+08 -2E+08 -3E+08 10 60 110 160 210 Wind Direction (degrees) 260 310 360
6E+07 4E+07 2E+07 0E+00 -2E+07 -4E+07 -6E+07 -8E+07 10 60 110 160 210 260 Wind Direction (degrees) 310 360

Without Upstream Tower B

With Upstream Tower B

Without Upstream Tower B

With Upstream Tower B

Figure 3: Example of Wake Buffeting shown in Figure 2; base overturning moment and torsional moment on Building D with and without influence of upwind Building D. This is a potentially serious situation that first came to the widespread attention of the structural engineering community in 1965, when three of the eight cooling towers at the Ferrybridge Power Station in the UK collapsed during a strong wind event. One of the contributing design errors that lead to the collapse was the wind loading had been based on experiments using a single isolated tower and did not account for the wake buffeting on the leeward towers that collapsed (Armitt, 1980) 3.2. Unusual or Irregular Geometric Shape: Wind tunnel studies are recommended for buildings with unusual or irregular geometric shapes (in plan or vertical cross-section), differs significantly from the shapes illustrated in the analytical methods in building codes. Unusual or irregular geometric shapes include buildings with multiple setbacks, curved facades, or irregular plans resulting from significant indentations or projections, openings through a building, or multitower buildings connected by bridges. Examples of such buildings testing in RWDIs wind tunnels are illustrated below. Examples of Unusual or Irregular Geometric Shapes

Figure 4a: Gardens on the Bay, Singapore

Figure 4b: Marion County Library, Indianapolis

Figure 4c: Atlantis Palm Island, Dubai

For buildings with unusual or irregular geometry, wind loading is most accurately determined through wind tunnel testing which may be used in lieu of the analytical code method. For buildings with unusual or irregular geometry it is common that localized "aerodynamic hot spots" are identified by wind tunnel testing which may exceed analytical code predictions. If not identified, such a hotspot will mean the building will be constructed with an inherent localized weakness that may only be revealed years later when there is a strong windstorm event, leading to a small localized breach of the building envelope. This

is especially concerning as a small localized breach of the building envelope can often cause a progressive/domino type failure of large areas of the faade as the interior wind pressures will increase as the inside the building becomes exposed to exterior wind pressures, leading to increased net wind pressures on adjacent faade panels. Figure 5 illustrates the mechanism that can lead to progressive/domino type failure if there is a breach in the building envelope. Figure 6 shows an example of a building that has suffered faade damage during wind storm. As these hotspots tend to be small compared to the overall area of the buildings facade, the cost to locally reinforce the hotspot is typically more than offset by savings identified by the wind tunnel elsewhere. Kumar (2006) provides for representative example buildings a comparison between cladding design wind loads based on wind tunnel testing with those derived from various building code analytical methods. These examples illustrate that the analytical code method typically grossly overstates the cladding design wind loads, but there are circumstances where localized hotspots exist caused by unusual geometry.

Pneg Pint Pint = Ppos

Breach! wind

Ppos

Figure 5: Localized breach in Envelope increases net wind pressure on adjacent facade

Figure 6: Windstorm Damage to Building Faade

Also for geometrically unique structures (e.g. long span airport terminals and stadiums, structures with linked bridges, complex curved shapes) wind tunnel testing provides overall structural wind loads that enables more refined, cost effective and safe design of the primary structural system. 3.3 Dynamically Sensitive Buildings: In addition to buildings subject to unusual wind effects due to their shape and/or situation, another class of buildings that require wind tunnel studies is high rise buildings or other slender structures where dynamic effects are important. These dynamic wind effects are not accurately predicted by analytical method in building codes. Flexible buildings with response characteristics that result in substantial vortex-induced and/or torsional dynamic effects, or dynamic effects resulting from aeroelastic instabilities such as flutter or galloping cannot be safely design using the analytical code method to estimate wind loads. These dynamic effects are complex and difficult to predict using simple criteria being dependent on many factors, but should be considered to probable when any one or more of the following apply: i. ii. iii. iv. The height of the building or structure is over 120m. The height of the building building or structure is greater than 4 times its minimum effective width Bmin The lowest natural frequency of the building is less than 0.25 Hz [i.e. 4 second natural period] Slender structures potentially prone to aeroelastic effects, refer to wind engineering consultant for evaluation.

These criteria reflect the reality that as buildings grow taller and more slender, wind loading effects become more significant. For example a doubling of building height wind-induced overturning moments will approximately increase by a factor of 8, whereas a doubling of building height is unlikely to increase the elastic seismic base moment by more than a factor of 2.4 (Wilford et al. 2008). Furthermore in regions where seismic loads may govern the base overturning moments dictating the pile design and strength of the lower levels of the primary structure, the lateral strength of the main lateral force resisting system on the upper floors, the structures torsion strength and serviceability considerations such as drift and building motions often are governed by wind effects. In addition to wake buffeting, described above, the following wind engineering phenomena are of particular relevance to flexible building types: 3.3.1 Across-wind Response: A commonly held misconception is that the only wind loads of importance are drag or along-wind loading, which acts in the direction of the wind. However for tall flexible buildings there is another type of wind loading of importance called across-wind loading, which acts perpendicular to the direction of the wind. Across-wind loading is caused by two mechanisms, buffeting of the building by turbulence and vortex shedding - the latter being the most significant for tall flexible buildings. As illustrated in Figure 7, vortex shedding is a phenomenon where individual vortices break away alternately from the building sides in a regular pattern imposing oscillatory forces on the structure. Although the suction force imposed by each individual vortex is not so great, when the frequency of shedding approaches the resonant frequency of the building significant dynamic motion and inertial forces result perpendicular to the direction of the wind.

Direction of Flow

Figure 7: Vortex Shedding, plan view of fluid interacting with a rectangular line type structure. Due to resonant effects across-wind response often exceeds the along-wind response for tall flexible buildings. However the analytical methodology provided in most international building codes do not cover across-wind loading, or provide estimates suitable only for preliminary design. This is because there is considerable uncertainty associated with relying on analytical methods to predict across-wind response, as it is a complex phenomenon which is dependent on man y factors including the buildings geometric shape, its dynamic structural properties, its inherent damping and the influence of neighboring buildings. An approach that is well suited to providing reliable design estimates of across-wind response that can account for all of these factors is wind tunnel testing using rigid aerodynamic models using either the high-frequency-force-balance (HFFB) or high-frequency-pressure-integration (HFPI) technique. With advances in data acquisition technology and computing power wind tunnel testing using these techniques has become cost effective and routine part of the structural design process of high rise buildings.

While across-wind loading due to vortex shedding is a complex aerodynamic phenomenon some simple modifications to the building shape can greatly reduce the magnitude of the response. These include softening the building corners, adding balconies to the building corners, tapering of the building with height, changes in cross section and creating openings where the air can bleed through. All of these modifications tend to disrupt the coherence of the vortex shedding along the height of the structure and thus reducing the demands on the structures lateral force resisting system. 3.3.2 Torsional Wind Loads: Wind tunnel studies and measurements of wind loading on full scale buildings have identified that torsional wind loading can be an important structural design consideration. The major international building codes provide some analytical estimates of the torsional wind loading, but many - including the Indonesias SKBI 1.3.53-1987 - do not. It is therefore not surprising that torsional wind loading is often misunderstood or ignored by structural engineers. The following highlights mechanisms that can give rise to significant torsional wind loads: o Building Shape: Unlike buildings with a cylindrical plan shape, when wind approaches a rectangular plan building from a skewed angle (oblique to face) the unsymmetric flow patterns gives rise to a torque loading caused by non-uniform pressure distribution. Also, for some buildings, even when the wind approaches perpendicular to the building face, if the geometric center is not aligned with the building center of stiffness torque loading will also occur. For short and midrise buildings of regular shape major international building codes, such as the ASCE 710, NBC 2005 and AS1170.2 2002, provide an analytical estimate to account for such situations however for more unusual plan shapes or irregular structural systems consultation with a wind engineering expert is recommended since these analytical estimates may be quite unconservative. Modal Coupling: Another common source of torsion wind loads arises due coupled mode shapes. In such situations, as the sway modes are excited by buffeting or vortex shedding, the building also dynamically responds with a simultaneous twisting motion. In situations like this the correlation between the peak overturning moments (Mx & My) are highly correlated with high torsional moment (Mz) generating load cases that may be critical for members of the buildings structural system. This mechanism is not addressed by analytical code methodology for estimating wind loads in building codes. Influence of Neighboring Buildings: A final important source of torsional is generated by the aerodynamic influence of nearby structures. A common manifestation of this is when a nearby structure partially shelters the building for some wind directions, generating a non-uniform pressure distribution that imposes an overall torque on the building. As described in Section 3.1 above, this is one of the situations when wind tunnel testing is recommended.

Similar to across-wind loading, these sources of torsional wind loads can also be reliably simulated in the wind tunnel testing using either the high-frequency-force-balance (HFFB) or high-frequency-pressureintegration (HFPI) technique. 3.3.3 Motion and Drift: While it is important to check the design of structural systems for the ultimate limit state wind loads, for many tall flexible buildings it is the control motions to avoid discomfort and psychological distress of occupants, or excessive drift that governs. For such buildings it is recommended that the structural engineer collaborates with the wind tunnel consultant to achieve a structure that is tuned to achieve a cost effective, yet comfortable level of performance. The reader is pointed to Irwin (Technote 2) which provides an overview summary of the perception of humans to motion in tall buildings and criteria that are commonly used during the design process.

3.3.4 Aeroelastic Response: Some structures due to the flexibility are prone to significant dynamic motions arising from aeroelastic forces, which occur when flow-induced structure motion change the airflow so that the motion is in turn affected. This type of feedback can either reduce the energy in the vibrating structure (adding positive aerodynamic damping forces), or add energy (adding negative aerodynamic damping forces) which is destabilizing leading potentially to catastrophic collapse. Fortunately, for the majority of structures these aeroelastic forces are not large, but the structural engineer is recommended to be aware of circumstances when they may be significant since the consequences can be serious. Perhaps the two most well-known examples of structures that suffered from aeroelastic excitation are the Tacoma Narrows Bridge which dramatically collapsed in 1940 due to aeroelastic instability and Bostons John Hancock Building which had to be retrofitted in 1970 with a supplementary damping device due wind-induced motion which is now believed to have been caused by vortex induced aeroelastic effects (Holmes, 2001). Although there are historic precedents of structures which collapsed due to aeroelastic phenomena which predates these two examples, they have become notorious as the behavior they exhibited has been subsequently subject to extensive study by wind engineering researchers during the emergence of boundary layer wind tunnel testing as a mature science in the 1960s and 1970s. While aeroelasticity remains a complex phenomenon that is subject to ongoing wind engineering research, the structural engineer faced with a building or flexible sub-structure of a building (e.g rooftop spires, exposed signboard structures, slender sculptures and stadium with retractable roofs) is recommended to consult with a wind engineering consultant to provide analytical screening level assessment to determine if such behavior is a possibility and, if warranted, conduct wind tunnel testing using a aeroelastic model. Aeroelastic model testing is also sometimes conducted for slender buildings when analysis using rigid aerodynamic models using the HFFB or HFPI technique indicates estimates of dynamic response exceed serviceability criteria and more refined estimates are desired. Unlike rigid aerodynamic models, aeroelastic models are carefully designed to flex in response to the airflow in a similar way to the full scale structure. Examples of Dynamically Sensitive Structures

Figure 8a: The Peak at Sudirman, Jakarta

Figure 8b: Proposed Marlins Stadium, Miami

Figure 8c: Ritz Carlton Mega Kuningan, Jakarta

4.0 Reducing Conservatism: Another motivation for commissioning a wind tunnel study is to achieve construction savings by reducing conservatism. This at first glance appears paradoxical how can there be situations (such as those described above) where designing using the analytical code method would be potentially be unconservative (unsafe), whilst the same time the method is conservative? This is explained by considering that the analytical code methods are generally biased toward being inherently conservative as they adopt a simplified one-size-fits-all approach, intended to envelope the peak wind loads that apply to the building types that are within their scope of applicability. As such, commissioning a wind tunnel study will reduce any undue conservatism by provide accurate, precise estimates of the wind loads specific to the building rather than simplified, generally higher wind loads while also providing assurance that unusual load effects, whose impact are typically localized to a portion of the faade or certain critical structural members only, are identified. The net savings often add up to millions of dollars (USD), dwarfing the cost of the wind tunnel study. In light of these economic benefits it is not surprising that hundreds of commercial wind tunnel studies are routinely conducted each year in situations where the language of the local building code does not require the study. 5.0 Guidelines for Selecting a Wind Engineering Consultant: While there are hundreds of wind tunnels worldwide many of them housed in engineering departments at universities - the majority of wind tunnel testing of buildings and civil structures today are conducted by specialized wind engineering consulting firms that have their own wind tunnels specifically built and calibrated for this type of testing. This is because the technical requirements for wind tunnel testing of structures in the atmospheric boundary layer are quite different to the wind tunnel focused on most aeronautical research (e.g. cars, aircraft). The consultant needs to have advanced rapid-prototyping technology to build detailed models and data acquisition equipment to keep pace with the demands of modern architectural design and schedules. Furthermore the majority of the effort occurs after wind tunnel testing, when experienced professional engineers post-processes the data to identify accurate and refined wind load patterns a simplified and conservative approach at this stage would cost less in professional fees but leave the project lacking most of the potential benefit from conducting the study. When faced with project that requires wind tunnel testing, the author therefore recommends approaching one of the reputable and specialized wind engineering consultancies with the expectation that they will adopt a suitable technical approach, using state-of-the-art methodology with appropriate quality control and take professional responsibility for their recommended wind loads. Intended as a reference when soliciting a quotation from a wind tunnel consultant, an Appendix is provided to this paper with typical best-practice requirements for a wind tunnel consultants scope of work. 6.0 Conclusion: The discussion and criteria provided above highlights the wind engineering phenomena of relevance to modern structural engineering design and outlines practical guidelines that can be referenced to identify when wind tunnel testing is recommended. Wind tunnel testing not only provides economic benefits during construction by reducing undue conservatism, it also improves safety by minimizing the risk of catastrophic loss years later when the building is tested by a strong wind storm event by identification of unusual wind load effects.

References: A.S.C.E. (1999) Manual of Practice, Number 67: Wind Tunnel Model Studies of Buildings and Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York A.S.C.E. (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7 10 American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston Armitt, J., (1980), Wind loading on cooling towers, Journal of the Structural Division., ASCE 1980, 106 (ST3) Holmes, J. D. (2001) Wind Loading of Structures Taylor & Francis, Abington Irwin P. A. Motion Criteria RWDI Technotes Issue 2 <www.rwdi.com/cms/publications/9/t02.pdf> Accessed July 16, 2011 Kumar, S. K. (200^ The Advantages of Using Wind Tunnel Testing: A Comparison Between Analytical Methods in International Building Codes and Wind Tunnel Testing for the Purpose of Effective Tall Building Design < www.rwdi.com/cms/publications/46/t27.pdf> Accesse d July 16, 2011 Kumar, S. K. (2009) Advancements in the Prediction of Wind Loading of Tall Buildings Quarterly Journal of the Indian Society of Structural Engineers, Vol 11-4 Kumar, S. K. (2011) Guidelines for the Wind Design of High-Rise Buildings Quarterly Journal of the Indian Society of Structural Engineers, Vol 13-1 NRC (2005) National Building Code of Canada , Associate Committee on the National Building Code, National Research Council, Ottawa SAA (2002), AS1170.2 Part 2: Wind Forces, Australian Standards AS1170.2:2002, Sydney Simiu, E., Miyata, T. (2006) Design of Buildings and Bridges for Wind: A practical guide for ASCE -7 Standard Users and Designers of Special Structures John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken Standard Nasional Indonesia (1987) SKBI 1.3.53-1987 Willford, M., Whittaker, A. and Klemencic, R. (2008) Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High Rise Building, Draft for Comment-1, 21 February 2008, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat

Appendix: Typical Requirements for Wind Tunnel Consultant Basic Wind Tunnel Simulation Requirements: Wind tunnel tests shall meet or exceed the requirements for wind tunnel testing established in the ASCE Manual of Practice, Number 67 Wind Tunnnel Model Studies of Buildings and Structures and ASCE 7-10, Chapter 31 Wind Tunnel Procedure. Statistical Wind Climate Model: The wind engineering studies shall include an assessment of the statistical wind climate of the study site (e.g. Jakarta), which accounts for both the directional dependence and severity of strong winds at the project site using the upcrossing technique. Structural Loads / Building Acceleration Study: The structural part of the wind tunnel study shall be undertaken using a high-frequency force balance (HFFB). Alternatively the pressure model may be used to derive wind responses using the high-frequency pressure integration (HFPI) technique. The study shall include the following works scope: 1. Preparation of a 1:400 (or similar) scale model of the building capturing all aerodynamically important features. 2. Construction of a model of the surrounding buildings to a radius not less than 400m. Testing shall be conducted for configurations that consider existing surroundings, with and without proposed/consented surrounding buildings. Non-sheltering testing shall also be conducted with aerodynamically significant neighboring buildings removed. 3. Testing the model in properly simulated upstream terrain to determine the mean and standard deviation responses for 36 wind directions at 10 degree increments for appropriate wind return periods. 4. Determination of the critical loads and accelerations for appropriate wind return periods and damping ratios. 5. Analysis of the measured data to derive predicted peak design base shear, moments and torque and the maximum accelerations at the top floors of each building. The predictions shall use the upcrossing technique to incorporate the results of the statistical wind climate study to account for the effects of directional wind speeds. 6. Derivation of pseudo-static peak force distribution along the height of each building for each critical axis. 7. The test report for the structural study shall include the following results:

Distribution of equivalent static wind loads and shear forces along the height of the building at each floor level for ultimate design with appropriate load combinations. Ultimate peak dynamic overturning moments and torque at the base of the buildings in all critical directions. Prediction of serviceability wind loads that can be used to derive the displacements of the buildings in all critical directions. Assessment of the predicted acceleration of the buildings top occupied floor with respect to occupant comfort criteria. The report shall include a discussion of the results with recommendations for building motion control or load reduction, if required.

Cladding Wind Pressure Study: The cladding wind pressure model of the building shall be built to a scale of 1:400 (or similar). The study shall include the following works scope: 1. Design and preparation of a 1:400 (or similar) scale model of the building, including all details larger than 0.4m at full-scale built using stereo-lithography process or similar rapid prototyping technology that captures small detail accurately, such as building canopies, fins and parapets. A 3D computer model of the wind tunnel model shall be released to the architect for review and comment prior to construction of the physical model. 2. The minimum number of pressure taps that will be installed for the study shall be specified by the wind tunnel consultant based what is appropriate for the building (a reference number of acceptable pressure taps is 500 for a 40 story tower of moderate geometric complexity). The pressure taps shall be positioned to take into consideration the possible locations of high wind loads, with the density of pressure taps increasing as the change in pressure across an area also increases (e.g. higher density at corners of building, both main corners and feature corners). Taps shall be installed to measure simultaneous pressures on any elements subject to wind pressures on both sides, e.g. parapets and canopies. Tap distributions shall be provided to the design team in ACAD (or alternate) format, for review and comment prior to the wind tunnel tests. 3. Testing the model in properly simulated upstream terrain to determine the mean and standard deviation responses for 36 wind directions at 10 degree increments for appropriate wind return periods. Testing shall be conducted in conjunction with the surrounding model described above for configurations that consider existing surroundings, with and without proposed/consented surrounding buildings. 4. Analysis of the measured data to derive predicted peak cladding pressures, including an appropriate risk based allowance for internal pressures. 5. The test report for the cladding wind pressure study shall include the following: Complete description of analysis, testing procedure and important results.

Block diagrams with recommended design wind pressures in 0.5kPa increments superimposed on the building elevations and roof plans, based on wind engineers interpolation of the wind tunnel data. An isometric key plan shall be included to clearly identify any hidden faces not shown on the elevations. Block diagrams shall be provided to the design team in the formal report as well as in ACAD format. Pedestrian Comfort Wind Study (If Required): Using the above cladding model of the building, the objective of the study is to simulate and assess the comfort level of the wind environment at grade around pedestrian important locations such as building entrances, and also on the upper level terraces. 1. The minimum number of velocity sensors that will be installed for the study shall not be less than 30. These should be positioned in the areas noted above, measuring wind speed at approximately 1.5m above the level being considered. The location of wind sensors shall be provided in ACAD (or equivalent) format for review with the design team prior to wind tunnel testing. 2. Optional: The tests shall include hard and soft landscaping of aerodynamic significance, based on the proposed landscaping scheme provided by the landscape architect. 3. Testing shall be conducted for configurations that consider existing surroundings, with and without proposed/consented surrounding buildings. 4. Analysis and Reporting: The test data shall be analyzed together with the long term meteorological data from Jakarta to predict the wind speeds that will occur for selected frequencies at each location. This analysis shall be compared to internationally recognized comfort criteria to determine pedestrian safety and comfort.

Requirements for Wind Tunnel Quality Assurance: The wind tunnel laboratory shall have a documented on-going quality control program to ensure the accuracy of the wind tunnel simulations and repeatability of measurements. To ensure competency and minimize potential for human error the following practices shall be required: Implementation of standardized project and laboratory records, that document signatures and dates of the persons responsible for tasks performed, including all critical steps to achieve the objectives of the wind tunnel tests. Documented checks by second engineer of all critical steps and the engineering analysis, qualified by virtue of education, wind engineering experience (4+ years) and professional engineering qualification.