DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Full-scale study of wind loads on roof tiles and felt underlay and comparisons with design data

  • Robertson, A.P. (University of Birmingham) ;
  • Hoxey, R.P. (University of Birmingham) ;
  • Rideout, N.M. (Building Product Design Ltd.) ;
  • Freathy, P. (RWDI Anemos)
  • Received : 2007.06.26
  • Accepted : 2007.10.10
  • Published : 2007.12.25

Abstract

Wind pressure data have been collected on the tiled roof of a full-scale test house at Silsoe in the UK. The tiled roof was of conventional UK construction with a batten-space and bitumen-felt underlay beneath the interlocking concrete tiles. Pressures were monitored on the outer surface of selected tiles, at several locations within the batten-space, and beneath the underlay. Data were collected both with and without ventilator tiles installed on the roof. Little information appears to exist on the share of wind load between tiles and underlays which creates uncertainty in the design of both components. The present study has found that for the critical design case of maximum uplifts it would be appropriate to assign 85% of the net roof load to the tiles and 15% to the underlay when an internal pressure coefficient of -0.3 is used, and to assign 60% to the tiles and 50% to the underlay when an internal pressure coefficient of +0.2 is assumed (an element of design conservatism is inherent in the apparent 110% net loading indicated by the latter pair of percentage values). These findings indicate that compared with loads implied by BS 6399-2, UK design loads for underlay are currently conservative by 25% whilst tile loads are unconservative by around 20% in ridge and general regions and by around 45% in edge regions on average over roof slopes of $15^{\circ}-60^{\circ}$.

Keywords

References

  1. Breeze, G. (2006), "Investigation of wind loads on underlay/tile roof systems", Commercial-in-confidence, Client Report No. 226 947, BRE, Garston, Watford.
  2. British Standards Institution. (1997), BS 6399-2. Loading for buildings - Part 2: Code of practice for wind loads. (Corrected and reprinted June 2002), BSI, London.
  3. British Standards Institution (2003), BS 5534. Code of practice for slating and tiling (including shingles). BSI, London.
  4. British Standards Institution (2005), BS EN 1991-1-4. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions - Wind actions. BSI, London.
  5. Freathy, P., Hoxey, R.P. and Short, J.L. (2000), "Romany interim report on pressure measurements on the roof of a full-scale building", DETR LINK Research Project Report, Confidential, Revision 1B, March 2000.
  6. Geurts, C.P.W. (2000), "Wind loads on permeable roof covering products", 4th Int. Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics & Applications, BBAA 4, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany, 11-14 September 2000, 511-514.
  7. Parmentier, B., Schaerlaekens, S. and Vyncke, J. (2001), "Net pressures on the roof of a low-rise building: Fullscale experiments", Proc. 3rd European & African Conference on Wind Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2-6 July 2001, 471-478.

Cited by

  1. Wind loading on ridge, hip and perimeter roof tiles: A full-scale experimental study vol.166, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2017.04.002
  2. Investigating a wind tunnel method for determining wind-induced loads on roofing tiles vol.155, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2016.05.006
  3. Wind Effects on Roofs with High-Profile Tiles: Experimental Study vol.20, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000156
  4. Large eddy simulation of wind loads on a long-span spatial lattice roof vol.13, pp.1, 2007, https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2010.13.1.057
  5. Ridge and field tile aerodynamics for a low-rise building: a full-scale study vol.16, pp.4, 2007, https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2013.16.4.301
  6. Aerodynamic Mitigation of Wind Uplift on Low-Rise Building Roof Using Large-Scale Testing vol.5, pp.None, 2007, https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00149