DESIGN OF A GABLE FRAME BASED ON WIND FORCES FROM

A FEW INTERNATIONAL DESIGN WIND CODES

Nikhil Agrawal1, Achal Kr. Mittal 2, V. K. Gupta 3
1
M.Tech Student, Deptt. of Civil Engg., Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India
nikky1827@gmail.com
2
Scientist, Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee India
achal_cbri@rediffmail.com (Corresponding Author)
3
Professor, Deptt. of Civil Engg., Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India
vkgsufce@iitr.ernet.in

ABSTRACT

In the present study comparison of design wind pressures for different zones of a building is made using
different International design wind codes. The loading thus deduced has been utilized to compare its effect on
the design of a typical column and roof truss structure for a gable building. The selected building is analysed for
various load combinations. Wind forces are taken from different countries codes but the design of members is
carried out as per Indian codes. An attempt has also been made in the present work to compare the design
variables of a few International wind codes of Asia Pacific region.

KEYWORDS: LOW-RISE BUILDINGS, WIND PRESSURES, INTERNATIONAL WIND CODES

Introduction

Wind Storms have caused some of the most destructive natural disasters in many parts
of the world. Much of the damage in these storms occurs to low rise buildings [Krishna
(1995)] and to large span industrial buildings [Mittal (2007)]. As a result, wind damage to
low-rise buildings has continued to draw the attention of researchers and engineers. The
evaluation of design wind loads on various zones of a building requires information about the
pressure distribution which is commonly expressed in non-dimensional form as pressure co-
efficients. A review of literature on the subject of wind pressures on truss buildings has
revealed substantial variation amongst the codal provisions. On the basis of literature review
it is seen that comparative study of design of steel gable structures on this basis does not
appear there in.

A single story gable building (configurations shown in Figure 1 & 2), has been taken for the
study. Following parameters are assumed:
1. Building is situated in the town of Roorkee (29o51’Latitude and 77o54’Longitude) in
India.
2. Topography is considered as flat ground, all around.
3. Terrain category-3 (Indian code) which includes well wooded areas, suburban, towns
and industrial areas full or partially developed and few tall buildings is chosen. Similar
terrain categories are chosen for other international wind code.
4. Basic wind speed at 10m height is taken as 39 m/s (in all directions).
The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering, November 8-12, 2009, Taipei, Taiwan

W=15m W=15m
Figure 1: Truss Configuration (15o, 20o & 25o) Figure 2: Truss Configuration (5o&10o)
In the present study a building having the Howe type truss configuration (Figure 1) is
analysed and designed for 15o, 20o, and 25o roof slope. For 5o and 10o roof slope another truss
configuration (Figure 2) is used in order to avoid higher forces in the members.
The wind codes of the following countries have been considered in this study:
1. India
2. Japan
3. Australia/New-Zealand
4. Hong Kong

Possible Variables:
Various factors, which may affect wind pressure on a gable building considered by
different wind codes, are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Factors considered in various International design wind codes

S. No FACTORS IS:875 Pt AIJ-2004 AS/NZS Hong Kong
3,1987 1170.2:2002 2004
1 Risk coefficient   
2 Terrain Factor   
3 Structure Height Factor   
4 Structure Size Factor 
5 Topographic Factor    
6 External Pressure Coefficient    
7 Internal Pressure Coefficient   
8 Directionality Factor  
9 Permeable Cladding Reduction Factor 
10 Area Reduction Factor 
11 Combined Factor 
12 Shielding Effect 
13 Importance Factor for Cyclonic Region 
14 Local Pressure Factor 
 Indicate Factor considered in the code.
The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering, November 8-12, 2009, Taipei, Taiwan

Wind pressures as calculated on an intermediate frame from various codes are given in
Table 2. Dead load and Live load are taken as per Indian Standards (IS: 875 Part 1-1987, IS:
875 Part 2-1987) respectively. The relevant load combinations with dead load, live load and
wind load are taken into consideration and critical design forces are computed. These are
listed in Table 3 for the Howe truss members and columns. Optimally designed Indian Steel
Sections for critical load combinations as per Indian Standard (IS 800:2007) using Working
Stress method have been used and the quantity of steel used on that basis is given in Table 4.

Table 2: Wind Pressures on Gable Building

International AS/NZS Hong Kong
IS:875 Part3,1987 AIJ-2004
Wind Codes 1170.2:2002 2004
Wind Pressure 524.79 × Cp 502.9 × CPe
706.717 × CP 1960 × CP
(N/m2) or 628 × Cpi
Cp = Cpe – Cpi, Cpe is external pressure coefficient, Cpi is internal pressure coefficient and
Cp is total pressure coefficient.

Design Forces and Section for Enclosed Building

Table 3: Design Forces for Typical Intermediate Frame from Various International Codes
(15o Roof Slope)
Forces(KN)/
Member IS:875 AIJ- AS/NZS Hong
Moments(KN- Load combinations
type Part3,1987 2004 1170.2:2002 Kong 2004
m)

Axial Force
Column Dead load+ Live load 29.533 29.533 29.533 29.533
(compression)

Column Moment Dead load+ Live load 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998

Axial Force
Column Dead load+ Wind load 13.821 3.588 2.235 85.553
(Tension)

Column Moment Dead load+ Wind load 26.40 23.729 24.229 150.994

Top Axial Force

Dead load+ Live load 80.089 80.089 80.089 80.089
chord (compression)

Bottom Axial Force

Dead load+ Wind load 40.271 15.802 26.950 194.609
chord (compression)

Axial Force
Ties Dead load+ Wind load 7.091 1.919 4.243 44.72
(compression)

Axial Force
Struts Dead load+ Live load 27.470 27.470 27.470 27.470
(compression)
The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering, November 8-12, 2009, Taipei, Taiwan

Table 4: Quantity of Steel used (15o Roof Slope)

Steel Quantity (Tons) INDIA JAPAN AUS/NZ HONG-KONG

Column Steel 3.182 3.182 3.182 3.772

Truss Steel 3.084 2.778 2.814 4.389

Steel used in Dead load+ Live load case 5.239 5.239 5.239 2.057

Steel used in Dead load+ Wind load case 0.987 0.721 0.757 6.113

Total Steel used for gable frames 6.226 5.960 5.996 8.170

Results and Discussions

Results obtained from various international codes for the studied parameters are
presented in the form of Graphs for column forces, truss forces and steel used. The variation
due to roof angles, openings and truss configurations as per different codes has been
presented with the help of suitable bar charts/ graphs or tables.

Column Forces
For the dead load + live load (taken as per Indian Standard) case the values of column
forces evaluated for different roof angles for different countries are given in Table 5. There is
marginal increase in the column forces with the increase in the roof angle. However, it may be
noted that the truss configuration is also changes for 5o and 10o roof slope. The minimum
forces are obtained for 15o roof slope.

Table 5: Variation of Column Force, Top Chord Force and Strut Force with Roof Angles for
Different Counties
Roof Angle Column Force (KN) Top-Chord Force (KN) Strut Force (KN)

5o 29.608 46.862 46.478

10o 29.898 36.977 40.451

15o 29.533 80.081 27.470

20o 30.171 62.403 21.411

25o 31.097 51.696 17.746

Top-Chord Forces

For the dead load + live load (taken as per the Indian Standard) case the values of
Top-Chord forces evaluated for different roof angles for different countries are given in Table
5. Axial force in the Top-Chord decreases with increase in the roof slope from 15o to 25o.
This is due to decrease in the intensity of live load with increase in the roof slope. Same
behaviour is shown for 5o and 10o for different truss configuration. As we increase the width
The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering, November 8-12, 2009, Taipei, Taiwan

of building from 15m to 25m these forces show higher values (about 96%). The maximum
force is obtained for 15o roof slope for l/w=1.667.

Strut Forces
Forces in the struts are also governed by the dead load, live load combination. From
Table 5 it is clear that axial force in the Struts decreases with increases in the roof angle due
to decreases in the intensity of dead load and live load combination It may be noted that when
truss configuration is changed for 5o and 10o roof slope forces in the strut show the higher
values.

Column Moments

Column moments are governed by dead load and wind load combination for 0o wind
incidence angle. Column moments increase with increase in roof slope from 15o to 25o and
moments decrease with increase in roof slope from 5o to 10o, for every country as shown in
Figure 2(a). When openings are considered greater member forces occur. Hong-Kong code
gives much higher values than the others for both cases (with and without openings). Indian
code gives higher values then the other two codes as shown in Figure 2(b). Japan code gives
lower moments in the columns than the Australia/New-Zealand code. This is due to variation
in the distribution of the external pressure coefficient along the wall of the building.

(a) (b)

Figure 2: Variation of Column Moment with Roof Angles for Different Countries

Bottom-Chord Forces

Bottom-Chord forces are governed by dead load and wind load combination for 90o
wind incidence slope. From the Figure 3(a) and (b) it clear that forces are decreases with
increase in the roof slope from 15o to 25o. However values are higher when openings are
provided. The decrease in the force value is due to decrease in the pressure coefficient values
as we move from 15o to 25o for every code. Forces are lower for 5o and 10o roof angle due to
different truss configuration. For truss building with or without openings maximum value of
force is obtained for 15o roof angle and minimum for 25o roof angle. In both the cases
(with/without openings) Hong-Kong code gives the maximum value and Japan gives
minimum value. This maximum value of force is due to higher values of pressure coefficients
adopted by Hong-Kong code.
The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering, November 8-12, 2009, Taipei, Taiwan

(a) (b)

Figure 3: Variation of Bottom Chord Force with Roof Angles for Different Countries
Tie Forces
Forces in the Ties are governed by dead load and wind load combination for 90o wind
incidence angle. Forces in the Tie members increase with increase in roof angle from 15o to
25o as appears in Figure 4(a) for all the codes except India. This is due to increase in pressure
coefficient values. For Indian code, forces in the tie members are almost constant. For roof
slope 5o and 10o, forces are constant for all codes for both cases (with and without openings)
because forces are governed by dead load and live load combination. When openings are
considered members give the higher values of forces as shown in Figure 4(b). The maximum
value is obtained for Hong-Kong code and minimum for Japan due to same reason as
discussed above.

(a) (b)

Figure 4: Variation of Tie Force with Roof Angles for Different Countries
Conclusions
The sensitive parameters that affect the design of gable roof building for wind from a few
international design wind codes are discussed below:

Roof Angle
With increase in the roof angle-a).Intensity of dead load and live load decreases,
b).length of truss members (Top-Chord, Tie and Strut) increase, c).Wind load on roof
decreases from 5o to 15o and thereafter increases upto 25o as given in the Indian code. From
Hong-Kong code it decreases continuously. Australia/New-Zealand code shows the decrease
The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering, November 8-12, 2009, Taipei, Taiwan

in the wind forces for upwind slope and increase in forces for downwind slope. Japan code
seems to show the same behaviour as Australia/New-Zealand code.
If steel used in the gable building with 15o roof slope, without openings and forces are
calculated as per Indian codes are assumed as unit of 100, then the following Figure 5 (a) and
5 (b) show the variation of the percentage steel with roof angle.

From Figure 5(a), it is clear that variation of steel with respect to Indian code is about -5% to
30% for 15o roof angle. When we consider the openings (about 20%) as shown in Figure 5(b)
more quantity of steel is used due to higher value of forces. Figure 5(a) and 5(b) also show
that the steel used, when using Japanese code is the minimum & while using the Hong-Kong
code it is the maximum.
It is noted that quantity of steel used for 20o roof angle is minimum for all the considered
codes and for 15o roof angle it is maximum.
It is also interesting to note that for Japanese code, quantity of steel used is same for 25o roof
angle with and without considering the openings. This is because of step changes in the
available rolled steel sections besides the certain design constraints.

Openings
Presence of openings causes greater forces on to the members due to flow of air
through the building. Internal pressure changes significantly depending upon the openings in
the building, but their overall magnitude are generally less than those of the local external
pressures.

Wind Incidence Angle

Coefficients are available only for two wind incidence angle 0o and 90o in the different
wind codes, so only these two directions are considered. Forces in Bottom Chord and Tie
members are governed by 90o wind incidence angle and Column Moments are governed by 0o
wind incidence angle.

Different Truss Configuration

Different truss configuration is used for 5o and 10o roof angles in order to avoid the
high forces on to the members. For other roof angles (15o, 20o and 25o) Howe type truss
configuration is used.

It is logical to expect that fore-said reasons may be largely overcome with increasing spans
and thus the difference amongst the codes. It is also worthy to note that all such variation in
the design forces do not necessarily culminate in affecting the total steel weight consumed.

It may be noted that whereas the Indian standard, Hong-Kong standard and Aus/Nz
standard specifies wind speed based on 3second gust, the Japanese code uses a 10 minute
mean, despite this difference the pattern of forces and design weights of steel obtained do not
seem to be affected in this particular study. However, it is a point to be kept in view in future
for such studies.
The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering, November 8-12, 2009, Taipei, Taiwan

Figure 5(a): Variation of Total Steel (%) used in Truss Frame with Roof Angles and for
Different Wind Codes (without Considering Openings)

Figure 5(b): Variation of Total Steel (%) used in Truss Frame (Considering Openings) with
Roof Angles for Different Wind Codes.

Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to Director, CBRI for allowing this work as M.Tech dissertation and
for granting his kind permission for publishing this paper. The study was suggested by Prof.
Prem Krishna, whose inputs from time to time have been invaluable. Thanks are also to Head,
Civil Engineering IIT Roorkee for his kind co-operation.

References
AS/NZS: 1170.2:2002, Australian / New Zealand Standard Structural Design Actions, Part 2-Wind action.
Hong Kong: 2004, Code of Practice on Wind Effects in Hong Kong.
Indian Standards IS: 875 (part 3) (1987), “Code of Practice for Design Wind Loads (other than Earthquake) for
Buildings and Structures”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Japan: 2004, AIJ Recommendations 2004 with commentaries.
Krishna, P. (1995), “Wind loads on low rise buildings - A review”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol. 54-55, pp. 386-396.
Mittal, Achal Kr. (2007), “Collapse of an industrial shed under wind loads possible causes and remedial
measures- A case study”, Fourth National Conference on Wind Engineering NCEW-2007, 30th October to 1st
November, 2007, pp 345-353.