Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 84 (2000) 197}213

Mean wind loads on porous canopy roofs

C.W. Letchford*, A. Row, A. Vitale, J. Wolbers
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
Received 6 August 1997; accepted 7 June 1999

Abstract
Mean overall lift and drag forces on a range of canopy or open roof forms with varying
porosities are presented. In general, lift forces decrease while for low roof pitches (a(153) drag
forces increase as porosity is increased in the range 0}23%. Resolution of these forces into
equivalent net roof pressures reveals that wind load may be transferred from the leeward to the
windward areas, leading to potential overloading of the supporting structure. Mean and
#uctuating pressure measurements were undertaken to con"rm the inferred pressure distributions on the roofs. ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Wind loads; Porous canopy roofs

1. Introduction
Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world, with two out of three
people developing skin cancers, many being life threatening [1]. The message in sun
protection programs to date has promoted personal protection, as evidenced by the
`Slip, Slop, Slapa summer and `Slip, Slop, Slap has got Seriousa winter campaigns.
However, making sun protection an integral part of community planning has been
acknowledged as just as important a preventative measure [1]. This involves the
provision of shade in public spaces where people gather, be it sportsgrounds, playgrounds, schoolgrounds or shopping areas. Motivation for the provision of shade
structures has also been aided by the litigation experiences of at least one local
government authority [1].
It is not only humans that su!er from lack of sun protection. The distress and death
of many beef cattle at the Whyalla feedlot, the largest in Queensland, in 1989,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 61(07)3365-3511; fax: 61(07)3354-4599.

E-mail address: c.letchford@mailbox.uq.edu.au (C.W. Letchford)
0167-6105/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 6 1 0 5 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 0 3 - 8

198

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

impacted both economically and publicity-wise on the beef cattle feedlot industry.
The most recent research carried out at the Brigalow Research Station in Central
Queensland indicates that signi"cant improvement in liveweight gain and animal
welfare is achieved by the provision of shade [2]. Currently, animal welfare legislation
is driving the need for greater provision of shade, but the economics of increased
productivity are catching up.
Shade and weather (hail) protection have also become increasingly common in the
fruit and vegetable growing industry where economic devastation can follow severe
crop damage. This was the case for the plant nursery industry in North Queensland
following Cyclone Winifred where sun damage to young plants was estimated to cost
up to one million dollars [3]. Similar weather protection is now being sought in other
areas, e.g. new car sales yards.
Whereas a large database of knowledge exists for solid suspended structures, e.g.
roofs and bridges, there is very little information on the wind loading and structural
response of suspended porous shade structures. Donnan et al. [4] report wind tunnel
and structural analyses of a greenhouse structure constructed of porous shade cloth
supported on cables. Their preliminary wind tunnel study indicated somewhat unexpected results, viz. increasing drag force and decreasing lift force with increasing
porosity. They went on to say that `If the results of this preliminary wind tunnel
study are accurate, the implications for the design of such structures are extremely
signi"cant.a
The provision of sun protection has therefore become a signi"cant economic and
health issue for humans, animals and plants. Typically of large span suspended porous
roof form, these shade structures are wind sensitive and an ongoing research project at
the University of Queensland aims to develop a model of the response of this class of
structure to #uctuating wind loads and implement this model as a rational design
method. This design approach and newly obtained wind loading information will
replace the current largely ad hoc approach which has the possibility of allowing
unsafe structures to be built.
This paper deals speci"cally with wind tunnel measurements on rigid models to
investigate the e!ect of porosity and obtain loading coe$cients on porous canopy or
open roof forms. Future papers will examine other parameters in the response of
shade cloth structures under wind loading, including #exibility of fabrics and tensioning system.

2. Experimental procedure
Porosity was deemed the dominant dimensionless parameter for the "rst stage of
this project. The porosity (p) or solidity (d) of the materials studied was calculated
from
open}area
p"1!d"
.
total}enclosed}area

(1)

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

199

Total enclosed area refers to the overall roof surface in this context. For shade cloth
fabrics however, porosity is di$cult to de"ne and indeed these fabrics are classi"ed in
a number of ways; by weight, weaving type, or most commonly by cover factor. The
cover factor is equivalent to solidity and is estimated by measuring the amount of
350 nm wavelength solar radiation (i.e. middle of the ultra-violet region) transmitted
through the shade cloth and does depend on the colour of the shade cloth, due to
di!erent degrees of opaqueness of the "bres. Indeed, wind forces acting on a porous
structure will depend not only on the porosity but also on the shape of the &pores or
holes' making up the porous surface, for example, sharp-edged holes will have
di!erent characteristics to woven "bres. An alternative to porosity is the pressure loss
coe$cient, which is de"ned as
P !P
$
K" 6
o;2/2

(2)

where P and P are the upstream and downstream static pressures on either side of
6
$
the mesh and ;M is the average approach velocity. The pressure loss coe$cient is
a measure of the resistance to #ow through a porous surface and includes the e!ects of
porosity as well as shape of `holesa. Thus similarity of wind loading will be best
achieved by equality of pressure loss characteristic (K). Here, the pressure loss
characteristics of a range of shade cloth fabrics will be compared with those measured
for various perforated metal plates of known porosity to select a suitable rigid
material for the wind tunnel tests.
The pressure loss measurements were performed in a small wind tunnel, approximately 300 mm square, in which the entire cross-section was covered by the various
materials being tested. Fig. 1 shows the experimental results plotted as K vs. Re. The
Reynolds number (Re) was de"ned in terms of ; and dominant "bre diameter for
fabrics and hole size for porous metal plates. The perforated metal plates of porosity
11% and 23% bracketted the commonly used high UV reduction (solidity) shade
cloths and were selected for the wind tunnel study. The 11% porous plate had 2.4 mm
diameter holes at 6.4 mm spacing while the 23% porous plate had 0.8 mm diameter
holes at 1.5 mm spacing.
Generic canopy roof forms of hip, gable and monoslope were chosen for the study
and two are sketched in Fig. 2. Three roof pitch angles (a) were selected for study: 73,
153 and 273. The models were constructed from thin (1 mm for solid and 0.5 mm for
porous) metal sheets 300 mm square and thus di!erent roof pitches had di!erent
projected plan areas. This arrangement is identical to earlier pressure measurement
studies of canopy roofs [5,6]. All were mounted at a lower eaves height (h) of 100 mm
on four 6 mm-diameter legs. The nominal model scale was 1 : 50.
A simple, one component force balance was constructed [7] to measure the very
small loads. This force balance could be mounted in several ways to obtain separately,
measures of the overall drag and lift forces on the models for various angles of attack.
A paddle in a container of a viscous #uid was used to dampen the #uctuating loads.
Only mean values of force are presented here which represent the average of between
three and "ve runs of 30 s duration at a sampling frequency of 100 Hz. The drag forces

200

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

Fig. 1. Pressure loss coe$cient K as a function of Reynolds number for various porous materials.
Perforated metal plates speci"ed by porosity, p (%), and shade cloth fabrics speci"ed by cover factor which
is approximately the solidity d (%).

Fig. 2. Sketch of model roof details.

on the four supporting legs were measured separately and were subtracted from the
overall loads to produce loads on the roof alone. The forces were reduced to
coe$cient form by dividing by the mean dynamic pressure at eaves height (the upper
height for the monoslope roof ) and the projected plan area A (" roof area]cos(a)):
p
F
C "
.
F 1/2o;M 2A
1

(3)

F is the force, lift or drag, with lift de"ned as positive downwards to be consistent with
AS1170.2 [8]. The 03 wind direction was de"ned as normal to the ridge line or roof
edge.

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

201

Fig. 3. Model and pressure tapping details.

The pressure tapped models had a single row of 10 taps spaced evenly along the
roof centreline. The pressure tap arrangements are illustrated in Fig. 3. The upper
surface tappings were all type A, while for the underside measurements several
di!erent tapping variants, types A reversed, B and C, were employed in an e!ort to
obtain a true wake pressure without interference. Each tapping has a 1.0 mm internal
diameter tube with a base mounting approximately 4 mm in diameter. Type A was
mounted on the underside for upper surface measurements and generally produced
the most consistent results when reversed, ie., placed on the upper surface, for
measurement of underside pressures. Type B su!ered from azimuth e!ects, picking up
some stagnation pressure when turned into the wind on the gable roof models, while
type C su!ered larger wake interference e!ects compared with type A. Net pressures
were measured with type A taps on the upper surface and type B taps on the lower
surface but displaced laterally by 10 mm.
Point and area-averaged net and separate top and bottom surface pressure
measurements were obtained using Scanivalves and Honeywell pressure transducers
and a 1.5 mm tubing system with a near linear frequency response to 150 Hz.
Pressures were sampled at 400 Hz for 15 s and repeated 10 times. A Fisher}Tippett
type-1 extreme value distribution was "tted to these data and mean extremes (maxima
and minima) estimated. Pressure coe$cients were obtained by dividing by the mean
dynamic pressure at eaves height.
The tests were conducted in the Department of Civil Engineering's Boundary Layer
Wind Tunnel which is 3 m wide ] 2 m high and has some 12 m of upstream fetch for
boundary layer simulation. A 300 mm fence and uniform carpet roughness were
employed in the smoother simulation, while a grid of 100 mm beams at 300 mm
centres was added immediately upstream of the fence for the rougher simulation.
Except where stated only results from the smoother simulation, where the turbulence
intensity at eaves height was approximately 15%, are presented here. The mean
velocity and turbulence intensity pro"les are compared with AS1170.2 [8] values in
Fig. 4(a) and (b) at 1 : 50 scale. The mean dynamic pressure was measured by
a pitot-static tube mounted at eaves height away from the in#uence of the model. It is
expected that this will lead to approximately 4% overestimate of the true dynamic
pressure [9] for the turbulence intensities in this study.

202

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

Fig. 4. (a) Mean velocity pro"les for the two simulations compared with AS1170.2 values. (b) Turbulence
intensity pro"les for the two simulations compared with AS1170.2 values.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Force measurements
The drag and lift coe$cients for the gable roof at an azimuth of 03 for three roof
pitches are plotted against porosity in Fig. 5. The drag coe$cient increases slightly
with increasing porosity for the shallower pitches but reduces for the 273 pitch roof.

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

203

Fig. 5. Drag and lift coe$cients for three pitches of a gable roof at 03 azimuth.

Fig. 6. Drag and lift coe$cients for three pitches of a hip roof (pyramid) at 03 azimuth.

The uplift (negative C ) reduces as porosity increases and for the 273 pitch roof is no
l
longer an uplift but a downward load which increases with porosity.
The drag and lift coe$cients for hip roofs, in e!ect pyramids for the two shallower
pitches, for an azimuth of 03 for three roof pitches are presented in Fig. 6. Again with
increasing porosity, drag increases for the shallower pitches but decreases for the
steepest pitch while uplift changes to a downward load.
The drag and lift coe$cients for monoslope roofs of three pitches at azimuths of 03
and 1803 are presented in Figs. 7 and 8. Like the gable roof, for increasing porosity,

204

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

Fig. 7. Drag and lift coe$cients for three pitches of a monoslope roof at 03 azimuth.

Fig. 8. Drag and lift coe$cients for three pitches of a monoslope roof at 1803 azimuth.

drag slightly increases for the shallower pitches but reduces slightly for the 273 pitch
roof, while lift reduces in magnitude with porosity.
A regression of the mean drag coe$cients for the various roof con"gurations,
pitches, porosities and azimuths for the smoother TC1 (15%) and rougher TC2 (20%)

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

205

Fig. 9. Regression of mean drag coe$cients for the two di!erent simulations.

Fig. 10. Regression of mean lift coe$cients for the two di!erent simulations.

simulations is presented in Fig. 9 and for lift coe$cients in Fig. 10. The increased
turbulence leads to an increase in drag and lift coe$cient of approximately 9%. This
result somewhat contradicts the general observation that increased turbulence leads
to earlier reattachment (for elongated bodies) and hence reduced wake pressures and

206

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

Table 1
Comparison between the present study, earlier pressure studies and AS1170.2 [8] for the mean
windward and leeward net pressure coe$cients on solid gable roofs
Roof type and pitch

Source

Azimuth

C
18

C
1-

Gable

73

AS1170.2
Gumley [5]
Letchford et al. [6]
Present study

03
03
03
03

!0.48 to 0.32
!0.08
0.07
0.14

!0.56
!0.52
!0.31
!0.30

Gable

153

AS1170.2
Gumley [5]
Letchford et al. [6]
Present study

03
03
03
03

!0.32 to 0.48
0.034
0.12
0.19

!0.80
!0.80
!0.41
!0.65

Gable

273

AS1170.2
Gumley [5]
Letchford et al. [6]
Present study

03
03
03
03

!0.32 to 0.68
0.59
0.60
0.69

!0.92
!0.59
!0.60
!0.57

consequently lower overall drag. Clearly the #ow mechanisms here are more complex,
with net (upper!lower pressures) and windward/leeward interactions making extrapolation of simple arguments unacceptable.
Table 1 presents for solid gable roofs the mean lift and drag force measurements
resolved into windward and leeward net pressure coe$cients. Positive values of
C are de"ned as downward for both windward and leeward faces. The present results
1
are compared with those from the Australian wind load code AS1170.2 [8] and earlier
mean pressure measurement studies of gable canopy roofs by Gumley [5] and
Letchford and Ginger [6]. The 273 roof pitch results have been interpolated from
22.53 and 303 results for both pressure measurement studies. The code values represent envelope results and were largely derived from the yuctuating pressure measurements of Gumley as indicated by the range of pressure coe$cients on the windward
roof and large suctions on the leeward roof. Here the code values have been multiplied
by an area reduction factor K "0.8. In addition, the force measurements include
A
both normal and tangential stresses while the code and pressure studies cover only
normal stresses or pressures.
The agreement between the di!erent studies is encouraging given the di!erent
techniques used. The steeper pitch has the best agreement while there is rather a lot of
scatter for both windward and leeward coe$cients for the 153 pitch roof. Discrepancies between the pressure studies [5,6] have been attributed by Letchford et al. [6] to
interference from the overly large supports on the Gumley model. This is not the case
for the force measurements where the legs were in correct scale. Discrepancies between
force and pressure studies can also arise from the distorted roof thickness (&8 mm)
required to conceal tubing for both pressure measurement models whereas the force
balance models were more realistically scaled being only 1 mm thick. Additionally,

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

207

Table 2
Comparison between the present study, Gumley [5] and AS1170.2 [8] for the mean lift and drag on solid
monoslope roofs. Bold indicates in excess of AS1170.2 values
Roof type and pitch

Source

Azimuth

C
$

C
-

Monoslope

73

AS1170.2
Gumley [5]
Present study
AS1170.2
Gumley [5]
Present study

03
03
03
1803
1803
1803

0 to 0.06
0.06
0.04
0 to 0.05
0.03
0.05

!0.52 to 0.16
!0.48
!0.17
!0.20 to 0.40
0.26
0.32

Monoslope

153

AS1170.2
Gumley [5]
Present study
AS1170.2
Gumley [5]
Present study

03
03
03
1803
1803
1803

!0.11 to 0.17
0.21
0.16
0.13
1.12
0.19

!0.4 to !0.64
!0.79
!0.50
0.48
0.46
0.60

Monoslope

273

AS1170.2
Gumley [5]
Present study
AS1170.2
Gumley [5]
Present study

03
03
03
1803
1803
1803

!0.43 to 0.60
0.79
0.44
0.44
0.49
0.53

!0.85 to !1.18
!0.46
!0.87
0.85
1.05
1.01

#ow visualization indicated that reattachment was possible on the underside of the
windward half of the shallower canopy roofs and di!erences in #ow simulation
between the three studies, particularly eaves height turbulence intensities &22% in
Ref. [6], &20% in Ref. [5] and &15% here, could explain the observed di!erences.
As the mean lift and drag forces cannot be resolved into windward and leeward net
pressure coe$cients for a monoslope roof, Table 2 presents comparisons of lift and
drag coe$cients with the earlier pressure measurement results of Gumley [5] and the
code [8] resolved into these force coe$cients. The 73 results for Gumley have been
interpolated from 03 and 153. Again the code values have had a K factor of 0.80
A
applied. For this roof con"guration the mean force coe$cients from the present study
lie within the bounds of the code values for all pitches studied for the 03 azimuth (high
side windward). However, for the 1803 azimuth (high side leeward) the present results
are nearly 50% greater for the two steeper roof pitches. A satisfactory explanation for
this large di!erence has yet to be advanced. Surface oil #ow visualization was
undertaken on 1 mm thick monoslope roof models. Along the roof centreline, the
separated #ow region extends further, by approximately 12%, on the underside for the
1803 azimuth monoslope roof (&0.45 of roof length) than on the topside for the 03
azimuth case (&0.33 of roof length). These surface #ow patterns are consistent with
a greater resultant force (hence lift and drag) for the 1803 azimuth. Typically the
Gumley results di!er from the code values by a constant 0.8 factor, probably K ,
A
except for the 153 pitch roof at 1803, where they are almost equal.

208

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

Table 3
Net pressure coe$cient representation for porous gable roofs
at 03
Roof type & pitch

Porosity

C
18

Gable 73

Solid
11%
23%

0.14
0.35
0.71

!0.30
!0.38
!0.64

Gable 153

Solid
11%
23%

0.19
0.45
0.58

!0.65
!0.49
!0.48

Gable 273

Solid
11%
23%

0.69
0.66
0.67

!0.57
!0.48
!0.39

1-

Table 3 presents the pressure coe$cient representation of the lift and drag on gable
roofs as a function of porosity. It shows that, with the exception of C for the 73 roof,
1there is e!ectively a transfer of wind load from the leeward to the windward face of
porous roofs which is most evident at moderate pitches with the e!ect increasing with
porosity. Identical trends were evident in the rougher (TC2) simulation results. This
transfer of load is of great signi"cance because although the overall drag changes are
relatively small for increasing porosity, the doubling of load on the windward face for
moderate pitch roofs will have signi"cant consequences for the roof substructure
design. The results for the 73 pitch are somewhat inconsistent and it must be noted
that the conversion of force coe$cients to pressure coe$cients is sensitive to pitch
angle and relative magnitude of lift and drag forces.
3.2. Pressure measurements
Pressure measurements were undertaken in order to estimate the wind load distribution. Table 4 compares the results of the centreline mean net area-averaged pressure
distribution for a 153 pitch gable roof at an azimuth of 03 for the three di!erent
underside tapping arrangements shown in Fig. 2. An average of the three results is also
presented.
Some di$culty was experienced in obtaining undisturbed pressures, particularly on
the underneath roof surface and this led to the trial of three pressure tapping
arrangements as discussed in Section 2. Although there is some scatter in the data it is
evident that the trends in the force measurements are reproduced. Clearly there is an
initial increase in windward net pressure coe$cient with porosity while there is
a signi"cant decrease in the leeward net pressure with increasing porosity. Direct
comparison with force measurements is not really possible as only centreline pressures
were measured and there would be signi"cant three-dimensional e!ects over such
short breadth roofs. However the trends in Table 3, C and C from the force
18
1-

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

209

Table 4
Mean windward and leeward area-averaged net roof pressures on a 153 pitch gable roof at an azimuth of 03
Tapping type

Porosity

C
18

C
1-

solid
11%
23%

0.20
0.48
0.37

!0.93
!0.47
!0.28

0.30
0.48
0.43

18

1-

!0.82
!0.34
!0.14

Average

C
18

C
1-

0.29
0.42
0.37

!0.80
!0.44
!0.23

0.26
0.46
0.39

18

1-

!0.85
!0.42
!0.22

Fig. 11. Centreline mean net area-averaged pressure coe$cient for one half of the solid and 23% porous,
273 pitch, hip roof as a function of wind direction.

measurements, are reproduced in Table 4 apart from the decrease in windward

coe$cient for the 23% porosity roof.
Fig. 11 shows the centreline mean net area-averaged pressure distribution across
one half of the roof for the solid and 23% porous, 273 pitch, hip roof as a function of
wind direction. It is evident that the porous roof experiences larger net positive
pressures (downwards) than the equivalent solid roof and this phenomenon is reversed
for suctions (upward loads). The largest downward load for each porosity occurs for
winds normal to the ridge line (azimuth"03), while the largest uplifts occur for each
porosity for a wind direction of about 1503, i.e., on the leeward roof half. Mean
maximum and minimum net area-averaged pressures showed similar trends. The lack
of symmetry about 1803 indicates the level of interference caused by the tapping
arrangement } here type B for underneath pressures.

210

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

Fig. 12. Centreline mean net pressure coe$cient for solid and 23% porous, 273 pitch, hip roof.

Fig. 12 shows the mean net point and area-averaged pressure distribution across
the centreline of the solid and 23% porous 273 pitch hip roof for an azimuth of 03. y
is the distance from the leading edge and = is the in-wind roof length as detailed
in Fig. 3. The area-averaged pressures over each roof half are signi"ed by p.a. It is
evident in both the point and area-averaged measurements that there is an increase in
windward mean net pressure and a decrease in leeward mean net pressure along the
centreline.
Fig. 13 shows the RMS net point and area-averaged pressure distribution across the
centreline of the solid and 23% porous 273 pitch hip roof for an azimuth of 03. Again
the area-averaged pressures over each roof half are signi"ed by p.a. Here the #uctuating area-averaged windward pressures are only slightly less for the porous roof
whereas there is a signi"cant reduction in leeward #uctuating pressures for the
porous roof.
Fig. 14 shows the maximum net point and area-averaged pressure distribution
across the centreline of the solid and 23% porous 273 pitch hip roof for an azimuth of
03. Surprisingly the area-averaged windward pressure maxima are slightly larger for
the porous roof. Leeward pressure maxima are of little interest in design.
Fig. 15 shows the minimum net point and area-averaged pressure distribution
across the centreline of the solid and 23% porous 273 pitch hip roof for an azimuth of
03. Here there is a signi"cant reduction in area-averaged minima on the leeward
porous roof when compared with the solid roof. As might be expected the average of
the point pressure minima and maxima are greater in magnitude than the corresponding area-averaged pressures due to reduced correlation of the #uctuating
pressures.

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

211

Fig. 13. Centreline RMS net pressure coe$cient for solid and 23% porous, 273 pitch, hip roof.

Fig. 14. Centreline maximum net pressure coe$cient for solid and 23% porous, 273 pitch, hip roof.

212

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

Fig. 15. Centreline minimum net pressure coe$cient for solid and 23% porous, 273 pitch, hip roof.

These pressure results, although for only one roof type and pitch and subject to
some criticism in terms of tapping wake interference, clearly illustrate that the
windward roof region experiences increased mean and peak maxima loading while the
leeward region experiences reduced mean and peak minima loading. These results
support the inferred load transfer to windward regions made from the overall force
measurements.

4. Conclusions
Mean wind loading coe$cients, both lift and drag, have been determined for
a range of rigid porous canopy roof forms. Similarity of the pressure loss characteristic
was used to match the range of typical shade cloth materials used in the construction
of these structures to a range of perforated metal plates used to construct the wind
tunnel models. Hip, gable and monoslope roof forms were studied for three pitch
angles, 73, 153 and 273, for porosity's ranging from 0% (solid) to 23%. The results are
applicable to shade cloths with cover factors (UV reduction rating) ranging from 80%
to 100%. In using this data for the design of other porous roof materials the pressure
loss characteristic K should be measured "rst to determine the applicability of these
results.
In general windward loads increase and leeward loads reduce with increasing
porosity. Flow visualization on a 153 pitch gable roof model revealed that porosity
induces #ow through the windward roof preventing reattachment beneath this section
of the roof and thereby increasing both the upper surface load through increased

C.W. Letchford et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 84 (2000) 197}213

213

stagnation area and lower surface load through prevention of pressure recovery after
reattachment. This regime occurs on shallower pitch roofs. For steeper pitch roofs
reattachment does not occur and the possibility of increased loading on the windward
roof is signi"cantly reduced. The leeward roof experiences reduced loading because
the separation bubble formed on the upper surface at the ridge line is vented
somewhat while the lower surface experiences a much more signi"cant wake e!ect
from the #ow through the windward roof section. Pressure measurements, although
di$cult in porous materials, con"rmed the trend for an increase in windward roof
load with increasing porosity and although mean and #uctuating suctions were
signi"cantly reduced with the introduction of porosity, mean and #uctuating pressures were actually maintained or increased with the addition of porosity.
For solid monoslope roofs, the force measurements indicated greater lift and drag
for the 1803 azimuth, high end leeward, than for the 03 azimuth. Surface oil #ow
visualization con"rmed that the separation was larger on the underneath side for the
1803 azimuth than on the top side of the 03 azimuth which would support the
observed force measurements. However, this "nding is opposite to earlier pressure
measurement studies and this discrepancy remains to be clari"ed.
Signi"cant work remains to be undertaken to examine #uctuating loads and in
particular the e!ect of #exibility of porous roofs on the structural response. This is the
subject of an ongoing research program at the University of Queensland.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge support for this study from the Department of
Civil Engineering and an Australian Research Council small grant in 1996 and 1997.

References
[1] Civil Engineers Australia, Skin cancer is an engineering problem, Vol. 38, 19 February 1993.
[2] R. Clarke, A. Lloyd, A. Whyte, Feedlot design as it a!ects the welfare and productivity of feedlot
cattle } e!ect of shade on British breed cattle, Annual Report, Brigalow Research Station,
QDPI 1994.
[3] G.F. Reardon, G.R. Walker, E.D. Jancauskas, E!ects of Cyclone Winifred on buildings, Tech. Rep. 7,
James Cook Cyclone Testing Station, Townsville, 1986.
[4] R.L. Donnan, G.R. Walker, E.D. Jancauskas, Design of a low cost wind resistant shade cloth structure,
First National Structural Engineering Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 26}28 August 1987,
pp. 384}387.
[5] S.J. Gumley, Panel loading mean pressure study for canopy roofs, OUEL Report 1380/81, University
of Oxford, 1981.
[6] C.W. Letchford, J.D. Ginger, Wind loads on planar canopy roofs, Part 1: mean loads, J. Wind. Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 45 (1992) 25}45.
[7] A. Row, J. Wolbers, Wind loads on shade cloth structures, BE Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
The University of Queensland, 1996.
[8] Standards Australia, AS-1170.2, SAA loading code Part 2: Wind Loads, 1989.
[9] C.J. Wood, On the use of static tubes in architectural aerodynamics, J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
3 (1978) 374}378.