ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 91 (2003) 1401–1417

Field measurement data of wind loads on

rainscreen walls
K. Suresh Kumara, T. Stathopoulosb,*, J.A. Wissec
a
RWDI Inc., Guelph, Ont., Canada
b
Centre for Building Studies, Concordia University, 1455, de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, Que.,
Canada H3G 1M8
c
Faculteit Bouwkunde, FAGO, Technical University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Received 30 November 2001; received in revised form 18 September 2002; accepted 31 July 2003

Abstract

Rainscreen wall design is still at its infancy stage even after its introduction about four
decades ago. Research continues in an effort to set out appropriate design guidelines for
rainscreen walls. This paper presents the key results of yearlong full-scale measurements of
wind loading on rainscreen walls. The objective of this study is to estimate the impact of
various design parameters on the wind loading on rainscreen. This paper also presents the
current status of the available codes and standards regarding the wind loads on rainscreen
walls and compares the full-scale results with some available provisions.
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pressure equalization; Rainscreen; Walls; Wind loads

1. Introduction

A major source of concern in the performance of building envelopes is their

susceptibility to rainwater penetration. Screened wall systems use an additional
exterior layer, the screen (outer wall layer or rainscreen), to keep the rainwater out of
contacting the structural leaf (inner wall layer or air barrier). Further, a cavity is
often placed in screened wall systems to provide gravity drainage and capillary break
in case of any rainwater penetration through the screen. Pressure equalized
rainscreen (PER) approach to wall design has been suggested to minimize the

*Corresponding author. Fax: +1-514-848-7965.

E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Stathopoulos).

0167-6105/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2003.07.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1402 K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417

wind-induced pressure difference across the outer wall layer and thereby reduce the
rainwater penetration through the screen. This wall system is a special case of the
modern screened wall systems. The state-of-the-art information concerning PER
approach to wall design has been documented elsewhere [1–3].
PER wall design has mainly been based on water penetration resistance. Increased
concern regards the higher construction costs of PER wall due to its two wall layers;
however, through better pressure equalization, the design loads for the rainscreen
and subsequently the construction costs can be reduced. Very few attempts have
been made in the past to establish design wind loads for PER walls [4–7]; however, it
should be mentioned that Ganguli and Dalgliesh [5] presented some of the first field
measurement data on PER walls. Most recently, Lawton [8] and Inculet et al. [9]
reported design schemes for venting and compartmentalization of rainscreen walls
based on analytical formulation and wind tunnel measurements. Current design
guidelines in codes and standards provide only sketchy and unsubstantiated
stipulations for the design wind loads of PER walls. Clearly, further research on
the effect of various parameters is necessary to establish objective standards or code
provisions for the structural design of PER walls. Experimental and theoretical
research can yield very useful information through systematic investigations.
Therefore, an extensive investigation, consisting of full-scale monitoring and
computer simulations, has been carried out at the Technical University of Eindhoven
(TUE) in the Netherlands [10–12]; parameters such as cavity volume, venting area
and leakage area can be varied in this unique field facility at TUE. The analysis of
the full-scale data to provide actual wind loads acting on PER walls is the main
subject of this paper; the results are provided in the form of pressure coefficients.
This paper also includes current status of the wind load provisions for rainscreen
walls and their comparison with full-scale results. Detailed investigation of the field
data in the frequency domain was recently reported in Ref. [12].

2. Wind load provisions for rainscreen walls

Few codes and standards address the design of PER walls. The British Standards
8200 [13] is the only code with specific provisions for the design of non-load bearing
vertical walls. As far as compartmentation of the cavity is concerned, this code
recommends the following compartment dimensions in order to minimize air
movement: The largest lateral dimension of air spaces within 25% of the corner or
top of the enclosure should be about 1.5 m, and elsewhere, about 5 m.
The Dutch standard for loadings and deformations [14] included a pressure
equalization factor (Ceq ) for the estimation of wind pressure on building envelope
consisting of two layers with an air column in between. However, this standard did
not provide any specific values for Ceq ; instead, it suggested to use a value of one
until pertinent information becomes available. On the other hand, the dutch code for
fixing of roof coverings [15] proposed a set of values for Ceq based on roof angles and
roof zones for the estimation of wind load on roofs of two layers with an air space
in between; however, there are concerns regarding the scientific or technical
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417 1403

background of these provisions. The Australian Standard for wind loads [16]
recommended reduction factors for the estimation of design wind loads on porous
cladding. These factors depend on the cladding porosity and the horizontal distance
away from windward building edge. In 1987, the ECCS [17] proposed internal
pressure coefficients in the inside air layer of a wall or a roof (i.e., cavity pressure)
with respect to porosity and stiffness of outer and inner wall layers, as well as
thickness of the air layer and any other entrances of air. Later, the Eurocode ENV
1991-2-4 [18] recommended almost the same values. Recent revisions of Eurocode,
currently under consideration, reflect the uncertainty associated with the previously
recommended provisions. Finally, the German Wind Code [19] also provides design
pressure coefficients for building envelopes with permeable facades. These values are
based on the study by Gerhardt and Janser [20].
Note that other major international codes and standards for wind loads in Canada
and USA [21,22] do not give any design provisions for rainscreen walls. According to
ASCE 7-98 [22]: if the designer desires to determine the pressure differential across the
air-permeable cladding element, appropriate full-scale pressure measurements should
be made on the applicable cladding element, or reference be made to recognized
literature [y] for documentation pertaining to wind loads.
The lack of consistent and ready to use wind design guidelines for PER walls in
codes and standards is clear. More research has to be carried out to generate and
formulate the basis for codification of design guidelines appropriate for PER walls.

3. Experimental procedure

The experiments have been carried out on the main building of TUE, Eindhoven.
Prevailing strong wind directions are west (270
) and south-west (225
). Upstream
terrain conditions for prevailing wind directions can be characterized as suburban.
A SOLENT ultrasonic anemometer mounted at the top of a 30 m high mast placed
on the top of a 14 m high building, 127 m westward of the main building of the
university is used for three component wind velocity measurements. Fig. 1 shows the
sketch of the field facility; few photographs of the field facility are shown in Figs. 2
and 3. For pressure measurements, a wooden panel 1 m  1.3 m (panel area,
Aw ¼ 1:3 m2) was mounted approximately on the middle of the west facade at a
height of about 39 m above the ground. The test panel consists of three components:
(1) rainscreen, (2) air barrier and (3) air space (cavity) between them; the cavity depth
can be varied. Four pressure taps are installed on the rainscreen and another four on
the air barrier for pressure measurements. Fig. 4 shows the details of the used test
panel. Many venting and air barrier leakage configurations have been used for the
measurement. Pressure and velocity data have been collected for six panel
configurations, the details of which are provided in Table 1. The flow characteristics
of venting and air barrier leakage have been determined using simple static
pressurization tests; details can be found in Ref. [10]. For all these configurations, the
cavity depth was kept constant at 0.15 m. Note that the venting area of configuration
1 is about 4.9 times the venting area of configuration 2. Comparing configurations 2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1404 K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417

Fig. 1. Sketch of the field facility.

Fig. 2. Test building, view from southwest.

and 3, venting areas are the same; however, their leakage characteristics are quite
different. Configurations 4 and 5 have no leakage, but their venting geometries are
different; the venting area of configuration 5 is about 2.3 times the venting area of
configuration 4. Configuration 6 is the same as configuration 5 but with leakage.
Differential pressure transducers have been used to measure the differential
pressures across the panel and across the air barrier. For data acquisition, a Physics
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417 1405

Fig. 3. Westward fetch of the test building.

Orientaion of Panel

S (180o)

E (90o) W (270o)
Panel

N (360o)

Fig. 4. The test panel.

Data Acquisition System (PhyDAS) developed at the Faculty of Physics of the TUE
was used. A PARSAM 25 (Parallel sampling A/D conversion board) was used to
capture the incoming signal. In each run, the exterior and cavity pressure data were
simultaneously measured at four taps each at a sampling rate of 20 Hz for 10 min.
The velocity data were also acquired by PhyDAS at a rate of 20.83 Hz. The
measurements were carried out between May 1998 and July 1999. During this
period, each of the six configurations was set for at least 2 months for measurements.
About 1500 full-scale runs have been registered.
The records were analyzed in time, frequency and amplitude domains.
Representative mean, rms and peak pressure values have been chosen for the
demonstration of the results reported mainly in the form of non-dimensionalized
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1406 K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417

Table 1
Panel configurations used for full-scale measurements
Configuration 1 2 3 4 5 6

Venting Circular Circular Circular Circular Rectangular Rectangular

holes holes holes holes slits slits
Ars ¼ 0:009613 Ars ¼ 0:001979 Ars ¼ 0:001979 Ars ¼ 0:001979 Ars ¼ 0:004577 Ars ¼ 0:004577
Cd ¼ 0:61 Cd ¼ 0:61 Cd ¼ 0:61 Cd ¼ 0:61 Cd ¼ 0:61 Cd ¼ 0:61
n1 ¼ 0:5 n1 ¼ 0:5 n1 ¼ 0:5 n1 ¼ 0:5 n1 ¼ 0:5 n1 ¼ 0:5

Air barrier Straw Straw Filter No leakage No leakage Filter

leakage
Cab ¼ 0:000314 Cab ¼ 0:000314 Cab ¼ 0:000171 Cab ¼ 0:000171
n2 ¼ 0:71 n2 ¼ 0:71 n2 ¼ 1:0 n2 ¼ 1:0

Note: Ars =venting area (m2), Cd =discharge coefficient, n1=flow exponent of air barrier, Cab =flow
coefficient of air barrier (mPan2/s), n2=flow exponent of air barrier.

pressure coefficients using the dynamic pressure at panel height (q). Mean, rms and
%
peak pressure coefficients are defined as P=q; P=q #
* and P=q; respectively; where -,
B and ^ represent mean, rms and peak, respectively, and P represents differential
pressure acting on panel or air barrier or rainscreen. In this paper, the differential
pressures acting on the panel, air barrier and rainscreen are denoted by Pe 2Pi ;
Pc 2Pi and Pe 2Pc ; respectively; where, Pe is the external pressure, Pc the cavity
pressure and Pi the internal pressure. Details of the experimental procedure and data
analysis can be found in Refs. [10,12].
When the cavity pressure equals external pressure, full pressure equalization (i.e.,
no pressure acting on the rainscreen or zero rainscreen pressure coefficient) occurs.
Pressure equalization performance is also indicated by the difference between the
pressure acting on the panel and the rainscreen. The value of rainscreen pressure
closer to the value of panel pressure, which happens when the cavity pressure is away
from the external pressure, indicates poor pressure equalization performance. On the
other hand, lower value of rainscreen pressure compared to the panel pressure,
occurring when the cavity pressure is closer to the external pressure, indicates good
pressure equalization performance.

4. Experimental results

Fig. 5 shows typical simultaneous measurements of the time variation of the

pressure coefficients across the panel, air barrier and rainscreen for configuration 2.
Because of the low venting area of this configuration, the low-frequency pressure
fluctuations are not transferred into the cavity completely. As a result, the mean as
well as the low-frequency pressure coefficient variations corresponding to the air
barrier are lower than those corresponding to the panel. It is also noted that
irrespective of the amount of venting, the higher-frequency fluctuations are not
transferred into the cavity and as a result, the pressure coefficient variation across
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417 1407

Configuration 2, Wind velocity at panel height = 12.5 m/s, Wind direction = 252.1o
2.5
panel air barrier rainscreen

2
Pressure coefficient

1.5

0.5

-0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (sec.)
Fig. 5. Time variation of pressure coefficients.

the air barrier is smooth compared to that across the panel. Consequently, the
higher-frequency pressure fluctuations have been transferred to the rainscreen.
Extensive analysis of the field data in the frequency domain has been recently
presented in Ref. [12]. For simplicity, only the pressure coefficients applicable to the
panel and rainscreen are discussed; one of the intentions of pressure equalization to
reduce pressure load on the rainscreen is another good reason for presenting results
in this format.

4.1. Mean pressure coefficients

The distribution of mean pressure coefficients applicable to the panel over the
wind direction shown in Fig. 6 is nearly symmetrical about y ¼ 270
(y =wind
direction; y =270
represents normal to the west facade); this is due to the exact
north–south (0
–180
) orientation of the building. As expected, the largest mean
pressure coefficients of the panel occur when wind blows nearly normal to the
facade, i.e., y around 270
. The mean pressure coefficients of the panel consistently
decrease as the wind direction increases or decreases from 270
.
Fig. 6 also shows that the mean rainscreen pressure coefficients are independent of
wind direction for configurations 4 and 5 with airtight air barrier and for
configuration 1 with high venting to leakage area ratio. In other cases, mean
rainscreen pressure coefficients depend on wind direction. This is clear from
configurations 2, 3 and 6. For instance, the mean rainscreen pressure coefficients are
higher when the wind blows normal to the facade and lower when wind blows
parallel to the facade. For all configurations, in case of mean pressure coefficients, it
appears that the difference between the mean rainscreen pressure coefficient and the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1408 K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417

1.6 1.6
Mean pressure coefficients

Pe-Pi (Config. 1) Pe-Pi (Config. 2) Pe-Pi (Config. 2) Pe-Pi (Config. 3)

Mean pressure coefficients

Pe-Pc (Config. 1) Pe-Pc (Config. 2) Pe-Pc (Config. 2) Pe-Pc (Config. 3)
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.8 -0.8
180 210 240 270 300 330 360 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Wind direction Wind direction

1.6 1.6
Mean pressure coefficients

Pe-Pi (Config. 4) Pe-Pi (Config. 5)

Mean pressure coefficients

Pe-Pi (Config. 5) Pe-Pi (Config. 6)
Pe-Pc (Config. 4) Pe-Pc (Config. 5) Pe-Pc (Config. 5) Pe-Pc (Config. 6)
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
-0.4 -0.4
-0.8 -0.8
180 210 240 270 300 330 360 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Wind direction Wind direction
Fig. 6. Mean pressure coefficients acting on panel and rainscreen as a function of wind direction.

corresponding mean pressure coefficient for the panel decreases as the wind direction
changes from 270
. This may signify poor pressure equalization performance of the
panel in terms of mean pressure loads for wind directions away from normal to the
facade; however, the associated pressure coefficients are low and therefore, this poor
performance does not have any consequences as far as design is concerned. On the
other hand, the high mean rainscreen pressure coefficients occurring close to y ¼
270
should be carefully considered for design purposes.
Note that the amount of mean pressure load shared by the rainscreen varies
depending on the venting area and the air barrier leakage configurations. The
corresponding mean rainscreen pressure coefficients of configurations 1 and 5 are
almost the same; these values are low compared to all other configurations which
reveals that the rainscreen takes only a minor part of the total mean pressure load
acting on the panel because of good pressure equalization. In case of configuration 4,
when the venting area is reduced compared to configuration 5, the mean pressure
load is increased. Note that even if the air barrier is airtight (e.g., configurations 4
and 5), sufficient venting area is required for better pressure equalization and
consequent reduction of mean rainscreen load. The highest mean rainscreen loads
are obtained in case of configuration 3; this is expected because of its leaky air
barrier and smaller venting area. Configuration 2 experiences low mean rainscreen
pressure coefficients compared to configuration 3 because of its better air barrier
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417 1409

configuration. Configuration 6 experiences low mean rainscreen pressure coefficients

compared to configuration 3 because of its larger venting area.

4.2. Rms pressure coefficients

The distribution of rms pressure coefficients of the panel over the wind direction
shown in Fig. 7 is nearly symmetrical about y ¼ 270
as previously noted in case of
mean pressure distributions. Similar to the mean pressure distributions, the largest
rms pressure coefficients of the panel occur for wind blowing normal to the facade;
and the rms pressure coefficients decrease as the wind direction increases or decreases
from 270
.
As noted in case of mean rainscreen pressure coefficients, the rms rainscreen
pressure coefficients do not depend on wind direction for configurations 1, 4 and 5.
In case of configurations 2, 3 and 6, rainscreen pressure coefficients depend on wind
direction; the rainscreen pressure coefficients shoot up when wind blows normal to
the facade and lower when wind blows parallel to the facade. Similar to the mean
pressure coefficient distributions, pressure equalization performance of the panel is
poor for wind directions away from normal to the facade since the difference
between the rms rainscreen pressure coefficient and the corresponding rms pressure
coefficient for the panel decreases as the wind direction changes from 270
. Note that
since the associated rms pressure coefficients are low for wind directions away from

Pe-Pi (Config. 1) Pe-Pi (Config. 2) Pe-Pi (Config. 2) Pe-Pi (Config. 3)

Rms pressure coefficients
Rms pressure coefficients

Pe-Pc (Config. 1) Pe-Pc (Config. 2) Pe-Pc (Config. 2) Pe-Pc (Config. 3)

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
180 210 240 270 300 330 360 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Wind direction Wind direction

Pe-Pi (Config. 4) Pe-Pi (Config. 5) Pe-Pi (Config. 5) Pe-Pi (Config. 6)

Rms pressure coefficients
Rms pressure coefficients

Pe-Pc (Config. 4) Pe-Pc (Config. 5) Pe-Pc (Config. 5) Pe-Pc (Config. 6)

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
180 210 240 270 300 330 360 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Wind direction Wind direction

Fig. 7. Rms pressure coefficients acting on panel and rainscreen as a function of wind direction.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1410 K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417

normal to the facade, high rms rainscreen pressure coefficients occurring close to
y ¼ 270
may be important for design purposes.
The amount of pressure load shared by the rainscreen varies depending on the
venting area and the air barrier leakage configurations. The corresponding rms
rainscreen pressure coefficients of configurations 1 and 5 are almost the same; these
values are low compared to all other configurations which reveals that the rainscreen
takes only a minor part of the total rms load acting on the panel because of good
pressure equalization. The highest rms rainscreen loads are obtained in case of
configuration 3; this is expected because of its leaky air barrier and smaller venting
area. Configuration 2 experiences low rms rainscreen pressure coefficients compared
to configuration 3 because of its better air barrier configuration. Configuration 6
experiences low rms rainscreen pressure coefficients compared to configuration 3
because of its larger venting area.

4.3. Peak pressure coefficients

Peak pressure coefficients as well as peak factors ((peak pressure coefficientmean

pressure coefficient)/rms pressure coefficient) acting on the panel and rainscreen have
been estimated for all configurations. In this analysis, the peak pressure coefficients
were selected based on 1 s averaging time. The dependence of the peak panel and
rainscreen pressure coefficients on wind direction is similar to that of mean and rms
rainscreen pressure coefficients on wind direction already described. In general, as
the wind deviates away from the normal, the peak panel and rainscreen pressure
coefficients decrease. The magnitudes of peak panel and rainscreen pressure
coefficients depend on the venting and leakage characteristics of the configuration.
For instance, peak panel and rainscreen pressure coefficients of configurations 2 and
3 are higher than those of configuration 6.
It is conjectured from the values of mean, rms and maximum pressure coefficients
that the pressure fluctuations measured for wind directions close to 270
are
positively skewed. Close to wind direction 180
/360
, negative mean pressure
coefficients are obtained; the corresponding maximum and absolute minimum
pressure coefficients are low and high, respectively. This shows that the pressure
fluctuations measured for wind directions close to 180
/360
are negatively skewed.
It is also noted that the magnitudes of the highest maximum pressure coefficients
occurring near 270
are much higher than the highest absolute minimum pressure
coefficients occurring near 180
/360
. This result is probably due to the panel’s
location on the middle of the facade; further, the results are based on measurements
made only for wind directions between 180
and 360
. On the other hand, the
highest absolute minimum pressure coefficients are expected to be higher than the
highest maximum pressure coefficients when the panel is located close to the corner
on the separation region. Typical variation of positive and negative peak factors with
wind direction is shown in Fig. 8. Note that positive and absolute negative peak
factors corresponding to panel increase as the wind deviates from 270
. The highest
positive and negative peak factors obtained are close to 9 and 9, respectively. These
high peak factors occurring close to 180
/360
may not be significant for design since
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417 1411

10 10

Minimum rainscreen peak factors Maximum rainscreen peak factors

Config. 1 Config. 4 Config. 2 Config. 3
Positive peak factors for panel

Config. 2 Config. 5
8 Config. 3 Config. 6 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
Negative peak factors for panel

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 -6

-8 -8

-10 -10
180 210 240 270 300 330 360 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Wind direction Wind direction
Fig. 8. Peak factors acting on panel and rainscreen as a function of wind direction.

the corresponding positive and absolute negative pressure coefficients are not as high
as the positive pressure coefficients observed near 270
. The positive peak factors
occurring close to 270
spread between 3 and 5; the peak factor above 3 signifies that
the associated pressure fluctuations are non-Gaussian and positively skewed. Note
that peak factor value depends on the mean pressure as well as the rms pressure
value. Therefore, low rms pressure can result in high peak factor.
Typical variation of positive and negative rainscreen peak factors with wind
direction is also shown in Fig. 8 for configurations 2 and 3. Note that, as with the
panel, positive and absolute negative rainscreen peak factors increase as the wind
deviates from 270
, resulting in lower values near 270
. Typical variation of positive
and negative rainscreen peak factors with rms rainscreen pressure coefficients is
shown in Fig. 9. It is clear that very high values of positive and negative rainscreen
peak factors are associated with low rms rainscreen pressure coefficients; this seems
to be an overestimation of the values and has no physical significance. Note also that
wide scattering of the positive and negative peak factors corresponds to low rms
rainscreen pressure coefficients.

4.4. Rainscreen pressure coefficients

Fig. 10 shows the measured mean and peak pressure coefficients across the
rainscreen for all configurations shown in Table 1. It is noted in this investigation
that the pressure coefficients for wind angles between 240
and 300
are higher than
those measured for 180
–240
and 300
–360
. In this wind direction range, there is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1412 K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417

10
Config. 2 Config. 3

Positive rainscreen peak factors

8

0
Negative rainscreen peak factors

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Rms rainscreen pressure coefficients
Fig. 9. Rainscreen peak factors as function of rms rainscreen pressure coefficients.

no clear pattern of variation of pressure coefficients with wind direction. As

expected, the peak pressure coefficients are more scattered compared to the mean
pressure coefficients. For a particular configuration, the pressure coefficient values
scatter around a certain level, which is different for each configuration. In case of
configurations 1, 4 and 5, most of the wind loads are transferred to the air barrier
and as a result, the mean as well as the peak rainscreen pressure coefficients are low.
On the other hand, in case of configurations 2, 3 and 6, the rainscreen experiences
higher wind loads either due to their smaller venting area or due to their leaky air
barrier and as a result, the associated pressure coefficients are high. The pressure
coefficient values of configuration 3 are higher compared to configuration 2 because
of the higher leakage associated with the latter.
Fig. 11 shows the ratio of the load taken by the rainscreen with respect to the load
acting on the panel; the load acting on the panel represents wind load on regular
wall. As per this definition, low ratios indicate good pressure equalization and load
reduction for rainscreen; a ratio equal to zero indicates no pressure acting on
rainscreen, while a ratio equal to one indicates full pressure acting on rainscreen. In
case of configurations 2 and 3 with leaky air barrier and smaller venting area, the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417 1413

Config. 1 Config. 2 Config. 3 Config. 4 Config. 5 Config. 6

1 1

Mean pressure coefficient

Mean pressure coefficient

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4
3 3

Peak pressure coefficient

Peak pressure coefficient

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0

-0.5 -0.5
240 250 260 270 280 290 300 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
Wind direction Wind direction

Fig. 10. Mean and peak pressure coefficients acting on the rainscreen.

pressure coefficient ratios are high compared to configuration 1. This shows that
lower ratios can be achieved by providing adequate venting area for counteracting
the leakage of the air barrier.

5. Design issues

For each configuration, the maximum mean and peak load ratios have been
selected from Fig. 11 and plotted with respect to the venting area of the
configuration in Fig. 12, where the corresponding configuration numbers are
indicated beside the symbols. The plot also groups the cases according to the air
barrier leakage. Low values indicate good pressure equalization and load reduction
for rainscreen. In general, as the venting area increases, the pressure equalization
performance improves and correspondingly, the load taken by rainscreen decreases.
However, note that the percentage of venting area required to produce good pressure
equalization or load reduction depends on the air barrier leakage. For instance, in
case of no air barrier leakage, the panel requires only small venting area to have
good pressure equalization. For the same venting area with the inclusion of air
barrier leakage, the pressure equalization performance worsens. This figure also
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1414 K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417

Config. 1 Config. 2 Config. 3 Config. 4 Config. 5 Config. 6

(Rainscreen load/panel load) peak (Rainscreen load/panel load) mean

(Rainscreen load/panel load) peak (Rainscreen load/panel load) mean

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
240 250 260 270 280 290 300 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
Wind direction Wind direction
Fig. 11. Ratio of the load acting on the rainscreen and the total load acting on the panel.

No leakage Cab = 0.000314 mPa-n2/s, n2 = 0.71 Cab = 0.000171 mPa-n2/s, n2 = 1.00

(Rainscreen load/panel load) mean

(Rainscreen load/panel load) peak

1 1
3
0.8 0.8 3

2
0.6 0.6
2

0.4 4 0.4 6
6
4
0.2 5 1 0.2
5
1
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Venting Area (% of panel area) Venting Area (% of panel area)
Fig. 12. Rainscreen load reduction as a function of venting and leakage area.

provides an idea about the required percentage of venting area with respect to the
desired reduction in load.
The results of this study can be used as a preliminary recommendation for the
design of rainscreen walls. Recently, the first author used these results along with the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417 1415

Table 2
Comparison of full-scale measurements with the provisions in ENV 1991-2-4 for rainscreen walls with
permeable air barrier

Configuration ENV 1991-2-4 Measurements

Condition % Load reduction % Load reduction

1 me > 3mi ; me o1%

me ¼ 0:74%; mi ¼ 0:045% Outside overpressure 0 95

2 me > 3mi ; me o1%

me ¼ 0:15%; mi ¼ 0:045% Outside overpressure 0 55

3
mi
me ¼ 0:15%; mi ¼ 0:095% ome o3mi 72 25
3
4 me > 3mi ; me o1%
me ¼ 0:15%; mi ¼ 0:0 Outside overpressure 0 75

5 me > 3mi ; me o1%

me ¼ 0:35%; mi ¼ 0:0 Outside overpressure 0 90

6 me > 3mi ; me o1%

me ¼ 0:35%; mi ¼ 0:095% Outside overpressure 0 65

Note: me =porosity of rainscreen, mi =effective porosity of air barrier estimated based on orifice plate-
meter equation [10].

analytical simulation results and the expert opinions of his colleagues to obtain load
reduction factors for panels of a high-rise building in Chicago. In the current design
practice, the wind loads acting on the rainscreen are handled by the engineering
judgment of the design engineer or the panel manufacturer. As already mentioned,
very few building codes and standards address or provide some design guidelines for
these walls.
Table 2 provides the comparison between the measurements and provisions of
ENV 1991-2-4 [18] for the case of rainscreen with impermeable air barrier
(configurations 4 and 5), and permeable air barrier (configurations 1, 2, 3 and 6).
Effective porosity of the air barrier has been estimated in each case using traditional
orifice plate-meter equation [10] for comparison purposes; note that the same
difficulty occurs in real-life situations where the actual leakage area of the air barrier
cannot be estimated precisely since they are in the form of punctures, cracks, etc. As
per the definition of the ENV 1991-2-4 [18], configurations 1, 2, 4–6 fell in the
impermeable category and code proposes no load reduction to the rainscreen though
significant load reductions have been found in full-scale measurements. On the other
hand, for configuration 3, code proposes 72% load reduction compared to the full-
scale value of 25%. The expression of cavity pressure coefficient in this code for
panels with permeable rainscreen and air barrier assumes that the load sharing
between the rainscreen and air barrier is only a function of the porosity of these two
layers. The data from Ganguli and Dalgliesh [5] indicate that the percentage of load
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1416 K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417

reduction on rainscreen walls ranges between 25% and 60% for venting area less
than 1% and leakage close to zero. However, realistically, the load sharing between
the layers does also depend on the total load on the panel. This is caused by the
difference in flow exponents for the rainscreen and air barrier which resulted in a
load sharing that depends not only on the ratio of venting to leakage characteristics
but also on the absolute total pressure drop across the entire panel [2]. Therefore,
quantification of the load sharing between the rainscreen and air barrier has yet to be
developed for codes and standards.
The current study is limited to winds favoring rain penetration (i.e., panels facing
windward direction). In order to establish an appropriate wind design guideline for
rainscreens, measurements of the pressure equalization performance of panels
located in separation zones, corners and edges must be carried out. Further,
measurements on larger size panels should also be carried out.

6. Concluding remarks

Pressure equalization of mean as well as low-frequency pressures can be achieved

by providing adequate venting area with respect to the panel area and air barrier
leakage. Pressure equalization of the short duration pressure fluctuations seems to be
difficult. Based on the extensive set of full-scale data although for a limited number
of cases, some preliminary findings have been presented in the paper, regarding area
of venting and design wind loads for rainscreens. The paper has also demonstrated
the weakness of national and international wind codes and standards with respect to
the design provisions for rainscreen walls.

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this project provided by the Netherlands School for
Advanced Studies in Construction is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would
also like to thank Mr. Eric Wijen and Mr. Wim van de Ven for their help in setting
up the experimental facility. Special thanks are also due to Professor Hans Gerhardt
who provided access to some of the research results obtained in Germany on the
subject of rainscreen walls.

References

[1] J.M. Anderson, J.R. Gill, Rainscreen Cladding: A Guide to Design Principles and Practice,
Butterworths, London, UK, 1988.
[2] K.S. Kumar, Pressure equalization of rainscreen walls: a critical review, Build. Environ. 35 (2) (2000)
161–179.
[3] A. Baskaran, Review of design guidelines for pressure equalized rainscreen walls, Internal Report
No. 629, IRC, NRCC, 1992.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kumar et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1401–1417 1417

[4] P.A. Irwin, G.D. Schuyler, M.A. Wawzonek, A wind tunnel investigation of rain screen wall systems,
Morrison Hershfield Limited, Prepared for CMHC, Canada, 1984.
[5] U. Ganguli, W.A. Dalgliesh, Wind pressures on open rain screen walls: place air Canada, J. Struct.
Eng. ASCE 114 (3) (1988) 642–656.
[6] D.R. Inculet, Pressure-equalization of rainscreen cladding, M.E.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering
Science, The University of Western Ontario, Canada, 1990.
[7] H.J. Gerhardt, F. Janser, Wind loads on wind permeable facades, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 53
(1994) 37–48.
[8] M. Lawton, A proposed design methodology for compartmentalization of pressure equalized
rainscreen walls, International Conference on Building Envelope Systems and Technologies
(ICBEST-2001), Ottawa, Canada, 2001.
[9] D. Inculet, D. Surry, A.G. Davenport, An experimental study of pressure gradients and their
implications for the design of pressure-moderated rainscreens, International Conference on Building
Envelope Systems and Technologies (ICBEST-2001), Ottawa, Canada, 2001.
[10] K.S. Kumar, A study on pressure equalization of rainscreen facades: full-scale experiments and
computer simulations, Technical Report, FAGO 99.40.K, Faculteit Bouwkunde, Technical
University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 1999.
[11] K.S. Kumar, J.A. Wisse, A full-scale study on pressure equalization of rainscreen facades,
in: A. Larsen, G.L. Larose, F.M. Livesey (Eds.), Wind Engineering into the 21st Century, Vol. 2,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999, pp. 1137–1144.
[12] K.S. Kumar, J.A. Wisse, Pressure equalization of rainscreen facades: analysis of the field data in the
frequency domain, Wind Struct. 4 (2) (2001) 101–118.
[13] British Standards Institution, Standard code of practice 8200, Design of Non-Load Bearing External
and Vertical Enclosures of Buildings, BSI, London, UK, 1985.
[14] NEN 6702, Loadings and deformations TGB 1990, Technische grondslagen voor bouwconstructies,
Nedelands Normalisatie-Instituut, The Netherlands, 1991.
[15] NEN 6707, Fixing of roof coverings—requirements and determination methods, Technische
grondslagen voor bouwvoorschriften, Nedelands Normalisatie-Instituut, The Netherlands, 1991.
[16] AS 1170.2, Australian/New Zealand standard: structural design actions, part 2: wind actions,
Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, Sydney, Australia, 2002.
[17] ECCS, Recommendations for calculating the effects of wind on constructions, Technical Committee
12—Wind, Report No. 52, Second Edition, European Convention for Constructional Steel work,
Brussels, 1987.
[18] ENV 1991-2-4, 1995, Eurocode 1: Basis of Design and Actions on Structures—Part 2–4: Actions on
Structures—Wind Actions, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 1995.
[19] DEUTSCHE NORM DIN 1055–4, Einwirkungen auf Tragwerke, Teil 4: Windlasten: 2001–03.
[20] H.J. Gerhardt, F. Janser, Windbelastung belufteter Fassadensysteme, Bauingenieur 70 (1995)
193–201.
[21] NBCC, User’s Guide—NBC 1995, Structural Commentaries (Part 4), National Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1995.
[22] ASCE 7–98, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil
Engineers, ASCE, NY, 1998.