WIND LOADING ON TRADITIONAL DWELLINGS: AMENDMENT OF SIMPLIFIED

DESIGN GUIDANCE

P A Blackmore
Building Research Establishment
1999

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

The British Standard code of practice for wind loading, CP3: Chapter V: Part 2, is soon to be
withdrawn and replaced by BS6399: Part 2. The methodology used in this new code is quite
different in many respects from that used in CP3. The simplified design approach for wind
loading currently contained in the Scottish Office Small Buildings Guide, which is
currently based on CP3, therefore needs to be modified to reflect the new methodology of
BS6399.

A simplified design approach for wind loads on traditional buildings has been previously
developed for the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions by BRE under the
guidance of an industry Steering Group. This previous method was developed specifically for
inclusion in Approved Document A of the England and Wales Building Regulations. This
report extends the methodology to the wind climate in Scotland.

This proposed simplified design method has a simple five-step approach and includes factors
that take account of altitude and topography. There are some quite large differences in
allowable building heights between the current and proposed methods, but in general, these
differences are largely beneficial. In many town and country areas of Scotland, the allowable
building height has increased, although at high altitudes or in the northernmost Islands the
allowable building heights are reduced. The proposed method includes a more accurate
treatment of topography, which allows significant increases in building height for all sites on
hilly or moderately hilly terrain.
 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

CONTENTS

1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1

2 Background to Previous Work....................................................................................... 1

3 Principle Differences Between CP3: ChV: Part 2 & BS6399: Part 2........................... 2

4 Description of the Proposed Simplified Method ........................................................... 2

Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

5 Implications of the Proposed Changes for Traditional Building Design....................... 8

6 Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 11

7 References.................................................................................................................... 11

Annex A List of Steering committee members

Annex B Sensitivity analysis of factors affecting design wind load in BS6399

Annex C Assumptions made in the development of the simplified method

 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

1 INTRODUCTION

The latest revision to the British Standard Code of Practice for wind loads, BS6399: Part 2
[1] was published in August 1997. The methodology used in this new Code is different from
that used in its predecessor, CP3: Chapter V: Part 2 [2]. Some of the major changes include:

 Basic wind speed - now given as hourly mean values rather than gust values

 Terrain categories - reduced to two from four

Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

 Site altitude - now included as a separate factor

 Distance of site from coast - now included

Results from calibrations between these two Codes show that in general that the two methods
give similar results, although significant differences in design wind loads can arise in some
circumstances, particularly for sites at high altitudes.

The Scottish Office Small Building Guide and the equivalent guidance for England & Wales and
Northern Ireland, together with a large number of British Standards, including BS 8103: Parts 2
& 3 "Structural design of low rise housing" and BS 5268 Part 3 "Code of practice for trussed
rafter roofs", all currently include design guidance based on the former wind Code. These
authoritative documents therefore need to be amended to take account of the provisions in the
latest wind Code.

2 BACKGROUND TO PREVIOUS WORK

A previous study [3], funded by DETR, was undertaken by BRE to develop simplified design
guidance for wind loading based on BS 6399: Part 2, for inclusion in Approved Document A,
BS8103: Parts 2 & 3 and BS5268, to replace current guidance based on CP3: ChV: Part 2. This
work was carried out under the guidance of an industry steering group, membership of which is
given in Annex A. As these foregoing authoritative documents referred to primarily concern the
construction of traditional dwellings, the objective of this study was to produce an amended
means of allowing for wind loading without generally resulting in changes to current
construction. However, it was accepted that, exceptionally, some changes in construction might
be warranted.

Existing simplified methods based on BS6399: Part 2, such as the method from the Centre for
Window and Cladding Technology (CWCT) and the draft revision to BS6262: Code of Practice
for Glazing for Buildings, Part 3: Fire, Security and Wind Loading, were considered by the
steering committee. However, it was concluded that these were not appropriate because they
were developed specifically for cladding design, were too detailed or too material dependant.

1
 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

The steering group considered a number of different simplified methods, which are described in
detail in [3], before eventually settling on a simple five step approach which is described in
Section 4.

3 PRINCIPLE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CP3: CHV: PART 2 & BS6399: PART 2

The principle reasons for the revision of CP3: Chapter V: Part 2 are:
Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

 To take account of the considerable advances in knowledge and experience of wind

engineering gained in the last 30 years.

 To move from a 3 second gust windspeed to an hourly mean value in order to allow more
accurate treatment of wind flow over topography and to provide a starting point for
fatigue and dynamic response calculations.

 To move towards harmonisation of methodologies with the Eurocode the ISO wind code
and other National Codes.

A full summary of the differences between CP3: ChV: Part 2 and BS6399: Part 2 is given in
Annex B

The factors in BS6399: Part 2 which most affect the design wind loads are the topography factor
(similar to the S1 factor in CP3: ChV: Part 2) and the altitude factor. Topography can increase
wind loads by 21% for every 100m increase in altitude. The effects from shelter, terrain, distance
from the sea or edge of town and size of loaded element, are smaller, although still significant.
Annex B contains a detailed sensitivity analysis of the parameters that affect the design wind
load.

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SIMPLIFIED METHOD

This method has been implemented in the form of a flow chart based on a simple five-step
approach. The major differences from the current method are:

x Basic wind speed map now given as mean wind speeds instead of gust wind speeds.

x Current conservative topography rules replaced with a simple topography model that has an
additional moderate hill slope category and up to three location zones.

x Site altitude now given as a separate factor

The assumptions used in developing this simplified method are set out in Annex C.

2
 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

The flow chart and accompanying figures (Figures 1 and 2) and tables (Tables 1, 2 and 3) for the
proposed simplified method are shown below, and summarised in Figure 3.

Read Map
wind speed V Step 1: Read windspeed V from Figure 1
from Figure 1
Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

Find the topographic zone for
the site from Figure 2 and
obtain factor T from Table 1
Step 2: Use Figure 2 to determine which topographic zone the site
is situated in and use Table 1 to determine the value of the
Factor T for the appropriate topographic zone and average
ground slope around the site.

Obtain value of factor A

from Table 2 Step 3: Use Table 2 to determine the value of Factor A.

Calculate
value of factor S Step 4: Calculate the value of Factor S from
from:
S=VxTxA
S=VxTxA

Obtain maximum allowable

building height Step 5: Read the maximum allowable building height from Table 3
from Table 3

3
 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance
Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

Figure 1 Map of wind speed V

4
 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

zone 2 zone 1 zone 2

0.4Lu 0.4Lu 0.4Ld 0.4Ld

Hills and Ridges

Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

Lu Ld

zone 2 zone 1 zone 2 zone 3

0.25Lu 0.25Lu 0.4Lu 0.4Lu 1.2Lu

Cliffs and Escarpments

Lu

Figure 2 Topographic zones for Factor T

5
 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

Table 1 Factor T
Topographic category and average slope of whole Factor T
hillside, ridge, cliff or escarpment Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Category 1: Nominally flat terrain, average slope < 1/20 1.0 1.0 1.0
Category 2: Moderately steep terrain, average slope < 1.24 1.13 1.10
1/5 1.36 1.20 1.15
Category 3: Steep terrain, average slope > 1/5
Note: Outside of these zones factor T = 1.0

Table 2 Factor A
Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

Site Altitude Factor A

(m)
0 1.00
50 1.05
100 1.10
150 1.15
200 1.20
300 1.30
400 1.40

Table 3 Maximum allowable building height (m)

Country Sites Town Sites*
Factor Distance to the coast Distance to the coast
S
<10km 10 to 50km >50km <10km 10 to 50km >50km
23 15 15 15 15 15 15
24 15 15 15 15 15 15
25 11 14.5 15 15 15 15
26 8 10.5 13 15 15 15
27 6 8.5 10 15 15 15
28 4.5 6.5 8 13.5 15 15
29 3.5 5 6 11 13 14.5
30 3 4 5 9 11 12.5
31 3.5 4 8 9.5 10.5
32 3 3.5 7 8.5 9.5
33 3 6 7.5 8.5
34 5 7 8
35 4 6 7
36 3 5.5 6
37 4.5 5.5
38 4 5
39 3 4
40 3
*for sites on the outskirts of towns not sheltered by other buildings use the values for Country sites
6
 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

Read Map
wind speed V
from Figure 1

Table 1 Factor T
Topographic category and average Factor T
slope of whole hillside, ridge, cliff
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
or escarpment
Category 1: Nominally flat terrain, 1.0 1.0 1.0
average slope < 1/20
Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

Category 2: Moderately steep 1.24 1.13 1.10

terrain, average slope < 1/5
Category 3: Steep terrain, 1.36 1.20 1.15
Find the topographic zone for average slope > 1/5
the site from Figure 2 and Note: Outside of these zones factor T = 1.0
Figure 1 Map of basic windspeed
obtain factor T from Table 1

zone 2 zone 1 zone 2

0.4Lu 0.4Lu 0.4Ld 0.4Ld

Table 2 Factor A
Hills and Ridges Site Altitude (m) Factor A

Obtain value of factor A 0 1.00

50 1.05
from Table 2 Lu Ld 100 1.10
150 1.15
200 1.20
300 1.30
zone 2 zone 1 zone 2 zone 3 400 1.40

0.25Lu 0.25Lu 0.4Lu 0.4Lu 1.2Lu

Cliffs and Escarpments

Lu
Calculate
va lue of factor S
Figure 2 Topographic zones for Factor T
from:
S=VxTxA Table 3 Maximum allowable building height (m)
Factor Country Sites Town Sites*
S Distance to the coast Distance to the coast
<10km 10 to 50km >50km <10km 10 to 50km >50km
23 15 15 15 15 15 15
24 15 15 15 15 15 15
25 11.5 14.5 15 15 15 15
26 8 10.5 13 15 15 15
27 6 8.5 10 15 15 15
28 4.5 6.5 8 13.5 15 15
29 3.5 5 6 11 13 14.5
30 3 4 5 9 11 12.5
31 3.5 4 8 9.5 10.5
32 3 3.5 7 8.5 9.5
33 3 6 7.5 8.5
Obtain maximum allowable 34 5 7 8
35 4 6 7
building height 36 3 5.5 6
37 4.5 5.5
from Table 3 38 4 5
39 3 4
40 3

*
for sites on the outskirts of towns not sheltered by other buildings use the values for Country sites

7
 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

Figure 3 Summary of the Proposed Simplified Method

Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

8
 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

In BS6399: Part 2, for cases where topography is significant the calculation of altitude factor is
based on the altitude at the base of the topographic feature. For simplicity in this proposed
method, the calculation of altitude factor is based on the site altitude even when topography is
significant. This can lead to an overestimation of the wind speed for sites on large hills and
ridges, with the consequence that the maximum allowable building height could be lower than
necessary. Therefore, it is suggested that the following note be added, either in the text or
attached to Table 2: !Note: For sites in topographic categories 2 and 3, a more accurate
assessment of Factor A can be obtained by using the altitude at the base of the topographic
feature instead of the altitude at the site . This approach is fully compatible with BS6399: Part
2, and would allow the user to take advantage of this more accurate approach if required.
Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

For some hilly sites the user might not have prior information on the dimensions of the hill and
so will not be able to determine which zone his site lies in. It is suggested that the following note
be added, either in the text or attached to Table 1 to overcome this difficulty; !Note: If the exact
location of the site is not known then assume Zone 1 .

5.0 IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR TRADITIONAL

BUILDING DESIGN

Eight sites in Scotland were chosen for a comparison between the proposed simplified method
and the current simplified method in the Scottish Office Small Building Guide. These sites were
chosen to give a geographical spread and range of altitudes and distance from the coast.

Site details, including the basic hourly mean wind speed from the proposed method and the basic
gust wind speed from the current Scottish Office Small Building Guide are shown below for the
eight sites selected.

Site Altitude Distance to coast V (m/s) V (m/s)

(m) (km) (current method) (proposed method)
Edinburgh 60 1 50 23.5
Glasgow 30 20 51 24
Inverness 20 1 51 24
Aberdeen 20 0 49 24
Oban 80 0.5 51.7 25.3
Lerwick 10 0 54 29.5
Fort William 100 0.5 51.5 24.5
Kingussie 270 52 50.5 23.5

9
 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

Each site has been assumed to be in both Country terrain and Town terrain on flat level ground
and on moderate and steeply sloping ground; for hilly terrain the site has also been assumed to be
at the hill crest and at a point some distance upwind from the crest. This gave a total of about 160
notional site locations for which comparisons between the current Small Buildings Guide method
and this proposed simplified method were made. The maximum allowable building heights using
the current and proposed methods are shown in Table 4, (heights are rounded down to the next
0.1m)

A comparison such as this is somewhat subjective because the current Small Buildings Guide
method is based on four terrain categories whereas the proposed method is based on two
Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

categories. The Country terrain category in BS6399 includes terrain !... from the flat open level,
or nearly level country with no shelter, such as fens, airfields, moorland or farmland with no
hedges or walls, to undulating countryside with obstructions such as occasional buildings and
windbreaks of trees, hedges and walls . This category therefore encompasses categories 1 and 2
in the Small Buildings Guide. Similarly, the Town category in BS6399 encompasses categories 3
and 4 in the Small Buildings Guide. For the purposes of this exercise, Country terrain in the
proposed method has been compared with category 1 in the current method and Town with
category 3.

The results in Table 4 show that there are some quite marked differences between the two
methods. In flat terrain, i.e. the no topography case, the proposed method results in significantly
greater allowable building heights at four sites (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness and Aberdeen),
where the allowable heights have increased from about 6m to 8m to 12m to 15m. At Fort
William there is little change, at Lerwick and Oban there is a small reduction of about 1m, whilst
at Kingussie there is a 50% reduction - about 3.5m, due to the altitude of this site. The largest
and most striking differences occur for the cases where topography is significant. The Small
Buildings Guide uses a very conservative treatment of topography, which assumes that the site is
always on the crest of a very steep hill. This method does not allow any buildings to be
constructed on steeply sloping sites at any of the eight selected locations. Whereas the proposed
method allows, for example, in Glasgow, buildings of up to 7.3m in height on the crest of a steep
hill. Where the building is assumed to be in Town terrain and away from the crest (as the
majority of buildings are) or on a moderate slope then the proposed method allows building
heights of up to 15m in Glasgow, over 13m in Edinburgh, Inverness and Aberdeen, over 8m in
Oban and Fort William and over 5m in Lerwick and Kingussie. Compare this with the current
method, which does not allow any building in these situations.

Much of the variation between the current and proposed methods is due to changes in BS6399,
such as the general reduction of the basic wind speeds in Scotland and the separating out of the
altitude factor, rather than differences between the approaches used in the two simplified
methods. In general, the proposed method gives greater allowable building heights except where
the site is at high altitude.

It should be noted that the altitude within a town vary quite considerably, i.e. at Oban the altitude
varies from sea level up to about 100m. For every 100m increase in altitude, the wind pressure
increases by 20%. Therefore, the allowable building heights presented in this report should be
considered as indicative only and not assumed to apply to all locations within the towns.
10
 Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

This proposed simplified design method uses a simple five-step approach, which includes
separate factors to take account of altitude and topography. There are some quite large
differences in allowable building heights, but in general, these differences are largely beneficial.
The main conclusions that can be drawn from this study are:

& For flat, level sites in open country or town terrain the proposed simplified method will
Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

generally give greater maximum allowable building heights that the current Small
Buildings Guide method, the main exception appears to be sites in the northernmost
islands where the allowable heights are slightly lower. For sites at altitudes greater than
about 100m, the maximum allowable building heights could be significantly lower than
those currently allowed by the Small Buildings Guide.

& The current simplified method in the Small Buildings Guide is overly conservative for
sites on hilly terrain and does not allow any buildings on hilly sites at any of the eight
selected locations. The proposed method treats topography in a more realistic and
accurate manner that allows buildings in all of these previously excluded areas.

& The proposed simplified methodology is more complex than that currently included in
the Small Buildings Guide due to the inclusion of altitude and topographic factors.
However, the steering committee feel that this new method is still well within the
capabilities of the users of the Small Buildings Guide.

7.0 REFERENCES

1. BS6399: Part 2: British Standard Code of Practice for Wind Loads, BSI, 1997.

2. CP3: Chapter V: Part 2: Code of Practice for Wind Loads, BSI, 1972

3. Wind Loading on Traditional Dwellings, Amendment of Simplified Design

Approaches, DETR Report Number 2651/96, 1997.

11
Licensed copy from CIS: atkins, Atkins Plc, 21/09/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

Building Research Establishment Centre for Structural Performance

Table 4 Comparison of Maximum Allowable Building Heights in Metres Using the Current and Proposed Simplified Methods

No Topography With Topography

1
Site Current Proposed Current method Proposed Steep slope >1/5 Proposed Moderate slope <1/5
Country Town Country Town Country Town Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 2
Country Town Country Town Country Town Country Town
Edinburgh 7.1 15 11.8 15 0 0 0 5.1 3 9.2 0 8.1 4.4 13.6
Glasgow 6.4 15 14.6 15 0 0 0 7.3 4.3 11.6 3.6 9.9 6.7 15
Inverness 7.1 15 13.2 15 0 0 0 5.7 3.3 9.6 0 8.6 4.9 13.9
Aberdeen 7.9 15 13.2 15 0 0 0 5.7 3.3 9.6 0 8.6 4.9 13.9
Oban 6.0 15 4.9 13.9 0 0 0 0 0 6.2 0 5.1 0 8.1
Lerwick 4.6 15 3.1 9.4 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 0 0 5.3
Fort William 6.1 15 6 15 0 0 0 0 0 6.7 0 5.6 0 8.5
Kingussie 6.7 15 3.1 9.4 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 0 0 5.3
1
The current Small Buildings Guide method assumes maximum speed-up at all locations on !steeply sloping sites

12