Wind tunnel pressure data analysis for peak cladding load estimation on a high-rise building

A correct evaluation of wind loads on high-rise building cladding panels is essential to ensure safety while avoiding costly over-design. The estimation of peak design loads from wind tunnel tests requires post-processing pressure time histories to remove small-scale fluctuations that do not significantly affect the total load on cladding elements. This post-processing commonly employs a low pass filter with a time-scale that is linearly proportional to the ratio of a reference length scale and velocity. The objective of this study is to analyze the equivalence between the moving-average filter and the spatial averaging procedure, focusing on panels near the top corners and edges of a high-rise building. The real area-averaged pressure is calculated using high-resolution pressure measurements and compared to estimates obtained from moving-average filters with a range of time-scales. The error is within ±1Cp for most pressure tap locations and panels analyzed, although some locations near the top edge result in overestimates of the peak suction up to 3Cp. The optimal value of the proportionality coefficient defining the filter time-scale is shown to be dependent on both pressure tap location and panel size, suggesting that accurate estimates of area-averaged pressures based on single-point measurements require more advanced post-processing techniques. •The paper presents an analysis of high-resolution pressure measurements for cladding load estimation on a high-rise building•The analysis focuses on areas near the top corners and edges of the lateral façade, where suction peaks are the determining factor for cladding design•The real area-averaged pressure is compared to the values obtained using a moving-average filter with a time-scale based on TVL equation•The error is within ±1 Cp for most pressure tap locations and panels analyzed•Some locations near the top edge result in overestimates of the peak suction up to 3 Cp instead.•Pneumatic averaged pressure results in smaller error (∼0.3 Cp) for all the locations and exposures here analyzed.