Page 1

ASHRAE Technical Committee 2.7, Seismic and Wind Resistant Design Summer Meeting, Long Beach CA 27-June-2017

ASHRAE, Inc. 1791 TULLIE CIRCLE, N.E. ATLANTA, GA 30329 404-636-8400

TC/TG/TRG MINUTES COVER SHEET

(Minutes of all TC/TG/TRG Meetings are to be distributed to all persons listed below within 60 days following the meeting)

TC/TG/TRG NO: TC2.7

TC/TG/TRG TITLE: Seismic and Wind Resistant Design

DATE OF MEETING: 06/27/2017 Location: Long Beach CA

MEMBERS PRESENT

YEAR APPTD

MEMBERS ABSENT YEAR APPTD

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS AND ADDITIONAL

Pat Marks  07/01/2016  David Jeltes  07/01/2013  Greg Meeuwsen 

Paul Meisel  07/01/2013  Okan Sever (Non‐Quorum)  07/01/2013  Harold Dubensky 

Matthew Hooti  07/01/2016  Martin Deveci(Non‐Quorum)  07/01/2013  Nate Deibler 

Paul Selman  07/01/2016  Daniel Abbate  07/01/2015  Stephen Duda 

Jim Carlson  07/01/2016      Robert Simmons 

Doug Fitts  07/01/2015      Angela Waters 

Panos Papavizas  07/01/2016      Michael Morby 

John Giuliano  07/01/2015      Prasad Naik 

        Matt Clark 

        Sarper Arun 

        Delaine Deer 

        Trevor Caldwell 

        Tom Yuschak 

        Jing Wang 

        Galen Gerig 

        Scott Campbell 

        John Iacobellis 

        Ladan Bulookbashi 

         

         

DISTRIBUTION:

ALL MEMBERS /CM OF TC/TG/TRG Section 2 Section Head

Page 2

Atlanta

TC 2.7 Seismic and Wind Resistant Design

Committee Scope: Technical Committee 2.7 is concerned with fundamental scientific and engineering design principles for seismic and wind resistant design of HVACR equipment and building mechanical/electrical service systems.

Chair: Patrick Marks, Johnson Controls, patrick.c.marks@jci.com Vice-chair: Matthew Hooti, Isotech Industries, mhooti@isotechindustries.com Secretary: Paul Selman, Thybar Corporation, pselman@thybar.com Website: https://tc0207.ashraetcs.org/index.php

1. Meeting was called to order at 3:30 PM.

2. All present members and guests introduced themselves. See summary/cover sheet above.

3. Quorum was established with 9 of 12 quorum voting members present. The non-quorum international members were not present.

4. Previous minutes from Long Beach were distributed by email. Minutes were approved but have not been posted

to the TC2.7 website.

5. TC Chair’s Report (Patrick Marks)

Provided attached BSSC Cooling Tower proposal for discussion. Provided TC2.7 June 2017 Conference Schedule. Proposed Title and Scope Revision to:

TC 2.7 Seismic, Wind and Flood Resistant Design Scope

Technical Committee 2.7 is concerned with fundamental scientific and engineering design principles for the resilient design of HVACR equipment and mechanical/electrical/plumbing service systems for resistance to natural hazards including seismic, wind and flooding.

6. Honors and Awards (Steve Duda)

Provided attached Honors & Awards report for ASHRAE TC 2.07

7. Long Range Planning (Matthew Hooti): Push, lobby or otherwise pursue an agenda to move Mechanical Engineers into the lead position (or at least an

equivalent position to Structural Engineers) with regard to the design, selection and incorporation of seismic and wind restraints for non-structural components. VISCMA started the conversation with a lawyer to review the legal side of it.

8. Publications Subcommittee (Jim Carlson) Discussed timeline for handbook revisions.

9. Programs Subcommittee (Robert Simmons)

Important deadline dates for Chicago meeting: 7/2/17: Program submission website opens 7/7/17: Conference Papers due 8/1/17: Seminar, Workshop, Forum, Panel Discussion, Debates due 8/7/17: Revised CPs due 8/28/17: Program time slots finalized in Atlanta 9/6/17: Program accept/reject notifications 12/1/17: PPT uploads begin

Page 3

Important deadline dates for Houston meeting:

8/28/17: CP abstracts, TPs and Paper session requests due 9/8/17: Abstract accept/reject notifications 12/8/17: Final CPs due 2/9/18: Seminar, Forum, Workshop, Panel Discussions, Debate proposals due

Programs For Winter – Chicago New Code requirements for ASCE-7-16 (Dubenski) Panos, Karl, Scott Seismic restraint vs. Vibration Isolation(CARLSON) Roman-VI, Jim Tauby-SP171, John G-Shake Table Wind (Marks), Possible cosponsor with TC5.2 Simmons-rooftop pipe/duct, Murry - RP 1692, Hooti-Rooftop equipment Co-sponsor with TG2.HVAC Security " Are you ready for the next disaster" (TG2.HVAC) 3 speakers from the TG and Angela Waters from TC2.7 Co-sponsor with TC6.1, Hydronic and Steam Systems (TC6.1) One speaker from TC6.1 and Tauby from TC2.7-seismic for boilers and pumps

Future Programs Session on shake table testing (Matt Tobolski) Back to Basics seminar Integration seminar (Pat) ACI/ASCE anchor requirements, housekeeping pads, etc. Codes/standards session Panel discussion/debate on some topic, e.g., should Ip be higher for components in rural schools? Stamping requirement and whether a Structural Engineer is required to perform the work or if Mechanical Engineer is adequate? July 2017 Deadline for learning objective, Q&A Co-sponsor buildings? Rooftop supported pipe and duct. Applications, Wind - Robert Wind restraint of rooftop equipment - Jim T., John G. chair Windscreen research paper results - Murray?, Harold chair Standards: ASCE7-10/16 wind changes Panos Seismic standards: ASHRAE 171 - Jim T., Kenny H. chair Application: ASCE7-10/16 seismic changes - Karl ACI - Scott C. Seismic applications: Karl chair Equipment certification- John G. Pictures (Haiti, US embassy? - Joel D. Inspections/Permits, approval/enforcement- Matt H.

10. Research (Panos Papavizas)

General

New RTAR's (Research Topic Acceptance Requests) must be submitted to MORTS (Manager of Research and Technical Services) by August 15, 2017 for consideration at the 2017 Fall RAC (Research Administration Committee) meeting.

The submission deadline for consideration of new RTAR's at the winter meeting is December 15. The deadline for the annual meeting is May 15.

Typically, it takes 1-1/2 to 2 years from RTAR submission to award of a research project.

As reminders:

o The Research Strategic Plan consists of 11 strategic goals. Research of interest to TC2.7 members would fall under Goal 9: Support the development of improved HVAC&R components ranging from residential through commercial to provide improved system efficiency, affordability, reliability and safety.

Page 4

o Research projects up to $100K require TC and RAC approval. Projects between $100 and $200K require TC, RAC, and Technology Council approval. Projects over $200K require TC, RAC, Technology Council, and Board of Directors approval.

o Unsolicited Research Proposals (URP's) must satisfy at least one of the following questions in order to be considered for funding:

Innovation: Is the proposed research innovative in concept and application?

Distinctiveness: Does the proposed research involve unique approach, skills, equipment which otherwise are not available to any other researchers?

New Research Topic: Is this a new subject of research which TCs have not proposed yet?

Timeliness: Would a significant opportunity be lost if the project had to go through ASHRAE Research process?

Co-Funding: Is significant co-funding or cost sharing available for the proposed research?

1692-RP: Effects of Shielding on the Wind Loads on Roof Mounted Equipment

o A draft final report was submitted by IBHS to MORTS and the PMS on May 9, 2017.

o IBHS requested a no-cost extension of the project schedule to August 28, 2017. The extension allows time for IBHS to complete its analysis of the wind loads on architectural screens, and for the TC to review and approve the report.

o The PMS reviewed the draft report in May, consolidated review comments into a pdf file, and returned the file to Dr. Murray Morrison on June 2, 2017. The draft report with consolidated comments is included as an attachment to this Research Report.

o The completed report should be available in July, at which time it will be reviewed by the PMS, and then distributed to the TC for final approval.

o Deliverables per the contract are as follows:

o Executive summary suitable for wide distribution to the industry and to the public

o Final report - one bound copy; two copies on CD-ROM; one copy in PDF format; one copy in MS Word

o One or more technical papers submitted through MORTS for inclusion in ASHRAE publications

o Data

o Project synopsis - 100 words in length and written for a broad technical audience

o It is likely that Dr. Morrison will satisfy the technical paper deliverable requirement by submitting a paper for publication in the journal Science and Technology for the Built Environment.

Other

o A possible research project to investigate the basis of the seismic restraint exemption for components weighing less than or equal to 75 lb that are in-line with a duct system was suggested and will be championed by Robert Simmons and Prasad Naik.

o A possible research project to determine seismic response modification coefficient(s) to be used for field-erected, pultruded fiberglass cooling towers was suggested and will be championed by Robert Simmons.

Attachments

o ASHRAE RP-1692 draft report with PMS comments

11. Membership (Robert Simmons)

Page 5

Name Appointed

Year Position

Mr Patrick C Marks, PE 07/01/2016 Chair Mr Matthew M Hooti, PE 07/01/2016 Vice Chair Mr Paul Selman 07/01/2016 Secretary Mr Stephen W Duda, PE 07/01/2016 Honors Chair Mr John F Dunlap, PE 07/01/2016 Subcommittee Chair Mr Panos George Papavizas, PE 07/01/2016 Research Subcommittee Chair Mr James A Carlson 07/01/2016 Handbook Subcommittee Chair

12. Old Business: : None.

13. New Business: None.

14. Next Meeting: Chicago , January, 2018

15. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 PM

ASHRAE Technical Committee 2.7, Seismic and Wind Resistant Design Summer Meeting, Long Beach CA

Appendix BSSC Cooling Tower proposal for discussion TC0207_Honors-Awards_Report_2017-Annual ASHRAE RP-1692 draft report with PMS comments

1

FEMA-NIBS BSSC PROVISIONS UPDATE COMMITTEE

Issue Team 6 - Nonbuilding Structures

Meeting #4, May 30, 2017

Conference Call

Prepared by Pete Carrato

Attendees: Voting Members:

Pete Carrato, Bechtel Corporation, Chair of IT

Greg Soules, CB&I (PUC Member)

Bill Scott, AISC Industrial building committee

Eric Wey, Fluor

Corresponding Members:

John Rolfes, CSD

John Silva, Hilti (PUC Member)

Guests:

Jim Harris, JR Harris and Co, (PUC Member)

Jiqiu Yuan, BSSC

Subject:

This meeting was held to discuss the development of an R factor for fiberglass (FRP) cooling

towers. This is one of the tasks identified for action by IT6.

Discussion:

Jim Harris has provided IT6 with background information on the development of R factors for

pultruded fiberglass structure, as part of an effort within ASCE to prepare a design standard with

this material. This information includes a specific discussion of fiberglass cooling towers which

has certain specific structural arrangements. The referenced document includes eleven unique

structural characteristics that are considered:

Ordinary braced cooling towers shall meet the following requirements:

1. Columns are continuous from the base to the top level of the structure. Where columns are

spliced, the splice shall develop at least 50% of the flexural capacity and at least 25% of

the tensile capacity of the column section.

2. Columns are aligned in an orthogonal grid with at least four lines of columns in each

principal direction.

2

3. Continuous beams extend the full length of the structure along each line of columns in each

principal direction. Where beams are spliced, the splice shall develop at least 50% of the

flexural capacity and at least 25% of the tensile capacity of the beam section, except that

the flexural capacity is not required if the splice is located at a column.

4. Beams are aligned in horizontal tiers with at least three tiers of beams above the base.

5. Every line of columns and beams in each direction is braced with diagonal braces that

extend tier by tier from the base to the top level.

6. The centerlines of the columns, beams, and braces along a line lie within one vertical plane.

It is permitted to meet this requirement with members that are composed of multiple cross

sections so long as the centerline of the built-up cross section meets the requirement.

7. The top level and any other level that contributes more than 25% of the seismic weight

shall include a diaphragm that is connected to every plane of braced frames and that has

sufficient strength and stiffness to distribute the seismic force from that level in a given

direction to all of the braced frames in that direction. It shall be permitted to use diagonal

bracing in a horizontal level to serve as the diaphragm.

8. Connections of columns, beams, and braces shall be bolted.

9. Members and connections are proportioned according to the other requirements of this

standard.

10. It is permitted to provide lateral support to ancillary structures with such towers, and the

framing of the ancillary structure need not meet preceding requirements 1 through 7, so

long as the total seismic weight of the ancillary structure does not exceed 10% of the

effective seismic weight of the total structure and the tower is designed for the lateral forces

created by the weight of the ancillary structure.

11. The effective seismic weight of water in supported open reservoirs is computed according

to Section 15.7.10 of ASCE 7. The effective seismic weight of water film and fill is

permitted to be reduced based on testing or rational analysis to no less than 50% of the

water film weight used for gravity load design.

The proposed ASCE design standard recommends an R factor or 2.0 for FRP cooling towers that

meet these eleven characteristics. For “other” FRP structures an r of 1.0 is proposed.

Mr. Harris provided the following additional information on the standard which has been under

development for many years. Towers are usually controlled by bolt failure due to bearing. Use of

bushing to improve this capacity have limited affects. This is currently being studied

experimentally at GA Tech. In addition to being highly redundant, it is expected these structures

may have damping greater than 5%. Based on the redundancy the standard proposes an r of 2.0.

Experimental study of damping may result in a greater value for R.

There was discussion of the effect of damping on R values. It was cautioned that designers should

not inadvertently double count the higher damping by using a higher R and a reduced input

spectrum.

There was discussion of R values for timber cooling towers. These towers have a history of failure

due to extreme environmental loads (earthquake and hurricane). It was mentioned that this is

possibly exacerbated but material degradation due to wetting and drying and a lack of maintenance.

It was proposed that the R value for timber cooling towers should be revisited.

3

It was generally agreed that the seismic design parameters proposed for FRP cooling towers in the

ASCE standard should be put forward by IT6 to the PUC: R = 2.0, Ω0 = 2.0, Cd = 2.0.

Action Items:

P. Carrato to draft a proposed revision to the seismic provision.

P. Carrato to contact Robert Simmons to brief him on this meeting and to seek input from the

Cooling Technology Institute.

ASHRAE, Inc. • 1791 Tullie Circle, NE • Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305 �404-636-8400 • Fax 404-321-5478

TC0207_Honors-Awards_Report_2017-Annual.docx

TC 2.07 Honors & Awards Report

2017 Annual Meeting, Long Beach

George B. Hightower Award:

� Recognizes excellence in volunteer service in the area of Technical Committee, Technical Group, and

Technical Research Group activities, excluding Research & Standards (which have separate awards).

Desireable qualities include include Seminar and Conference Paper programs, Handbook & Program

subcommittee work including officer positions, and service as TC officer.

� TC 2.07’s nominee last year was Karl Peterman. The award is competitive, meaning only one is chosen

among all nominees. TAC chose a different candidate from among the nominees this year, so our

selected nominee did not win.

� ACTION ITEM: Nominations are due September 1 each year, and I will work with Pat Marks to

submit our TC’s strongest nominee.

Service to ASHRAE Research Award:

� Recognizes excellence in volunteer service in the area of Society research. Desirable qualities include

authorship of RTARs and Work Statements, participation or chairing of multiple PMS and PES, and

Research subcommittee work including Research Subcommittee Chair. This award is for a volunteer

in support of Research, not a paid researcher and not a donor to ASHRAE Research.

� ACTION ITEM: TC 2.07 did not have a nominee last year. Nominations are due September 1 each

year, and I would like to submit our strongest candidate each year.

ASHRAE Fellow:

� Recognizes distinction in the arts relating to the sciences of heating, refrigeration, air conditioning or

ventilation, or the allied arts and sciences, or in the teaching of major courses in said arts and sciences,

or who by reason of invention, research, teaching, design, original work, or as an engineering executive

on projects of unusual or important scope, has made substantial contribution to said arts and sciences,

and has been in good standing as a full grade Member for at least ten (10) years is eligible for election

to the grade of Fellow.

� I formally nominated one of our TC 2.07 Members for this honor this year (name confidential until

confirmed), and that nomination is pending. Timetable is (a) the Board of Directors reviews it at the

2017 Annual Conference in Long Beach; (b) Award is presented at the Plenary of the 2018 Winter

Conference in Chicago.

� ACTION ITEM: New nominations are due December 1 of each year. Please help me identify suitable

candidates from this TC, including yourself if you feel you are eligible. I have another candidate from

TC 2.07 in mind and will formally nominate by the deadline – and I will need support letters from

others on this committee.

Distinguished Service Award:

� Recognizes members who have served ASHRAE faithfully as a member of committees or otherwise

giving freely of his/her time and talent on behalf of the Society. Lifetime cumulative points-based

system with a minimum of 15 points required.

TC 2.07 Honors & Awards Report June 2017

Page 2 of 2

� The points tally sheet is available on the ASHRAE website or directly from me.

� Recipient from TC 2.07 this year: Congratulations to James Carlson and John Dunlap! They receive

their award at the Saturday Plenary of this Conference.

� New nominations are due May 1 of each year. Self-nominations are permitted. Please help me identify

additional suitable candidates from this TC, including yourself if you feel you are eligible and have not

yet received this award. There is no quantity limit on nominees.

Exceptional Service Award:

� Recognizes members who have served the Society faithfully and with exemplary effort, far in excess of

that required for the Distinguished Service Award. Lifetime cumulative points-based system with a

minimum of 45 points required.

� The points tally sheet is available on the ASHRAE website or directly from me.

� New nominations are due May 1 of each year. Self-nominations are permitted. Please help me identify

additional suitable candidates from this TC, including yourself if you feel you are eligible and have not

yet received this award.

Other Awards on my Radar:

� Standards Achievement Award. Recognizes excellence in volunteer service for developing ASHRAE

Standards and/or Guidelines. ACTION ITEM: Nominations are due annually on December 1 and I

recommend we nominate somebody from TC 2.07 who is active on SPC 171 or others.

� Andrew T. Boggs Service Award. Recognizes a past Exceptional Service Awardee for continued,

unselfish, dedicated and distinguished service to the Society. This is a competitive award, with a

maximum of one chosen per year. To be eligible, one must already have won the Exceptional Service

Award. New nominations are due May 1 each year.

� Louise & Bill Holladay Distinguished Fellow Award. Recognizes a Fellow of the Society who

continues preeminence in engineering or research. This is a competitive award, with a maximum of

one chosen per year. To be eligible, one must already be a Fellow of the Society. New nominations are

due May 1 each year.

� F. Paul Anderson Award. Honors a member for notable achievement, outstanding work or service in

any field of the Society. This is ASHRAE’s highest honor. This is a competitive award, with a maximum

of one chosen per year. New nominations are due December 1 each year.

Respectfully submitted by:

Stephen W. Duda

TC 2.07 Honors & Awards Chair

June 19, 2017

DRAFT REPORT

1692-RP: Effects of Shielding on the Wind Loads on Roof Mounted Equipment

Prepared by: Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety

Dr. M. J. Morrison

Mr. Connell Miller

Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety

4775 E. Fowler Ave. Tampa, FL

33617 May 3rd, 2017

ii

Executive Summary The use of architectural screens on the roofs of buildings is required in many urban planning/zoning requirements to hide roof-mounted equipment (RME) from view for aesthetic purposes. They may also serve as wind screens to reduce wind loads on RME. Currently, there is a lack of guidance for designers and engineers on how to appropriately calculate wind loads on these porous structures. IBHS and others (Erwin et al., (2011)) have shown that loads on RME can be reduced when RME is surrounded by other RME units. Based on these results, it would be expected that RME surrounded by architectural screens would also see a reduction in wind loads. However, the reduction in wind loads due to surrounding RME or architectural screens has not been quantified in a systematic way to allow for codification. Current building code provisions do not provide any guidance on these potential reductions. In fact, ASCE 7-10 includes language in Section 29.1.4 that can be interpreted as prohibiting the use of reductions due to shielding.

To determine the wind loads on architectural screens and their effect on wind loads for RME, IBHS partnered with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Technical Committee on Seismic and Wind Resistant Design (TC 2.7). Through this partnership, ASHRAE provided technical guidance, engineering resources and monetary support for the project. IBHS conducted full-scale wind tunnel experiments investigating the wind loads on architectural screens and how they affect the wind loads on RME. To provide guidance to designers or to allow for the codification of the shielding effects of screen walls the following research questions were examined in the current study:

1. Effect of net free area and aspect ratio of screen openings 2. Effects of location of both screen walls and RME on the roof of the building 3. Elevation ratios between RME and screen-walls 4. Distance of RME from screen walls 5. Configuration of screen walls - fully enclosed vs. partially enclosed Some key findings of this study include:

• Wind loads on RME are reduced by the presence of architectural screens when the equipment height is smaller than the screen height.

• The amount of load reduction is significantly reduced or eliminated when the equipment is taller than the architectural screen.

• RME that is fully surrounded by architectural screens has a much larger reduction than those only partially surrounded.

• Near the center of the building, the load reduction due to a partial screen configuration is negligible relative to the isolated case at that location.

• Wind loads for all architectural screens in each location and configuration are less than the lateral design coefficients provided by ASCE 7-10 (2010) for RME wind loads.

• The location on the roof does not appear to significantly change wind loads on architectural screens.

• The type of architectural screen does not appear to appreciably affect the wind load reduction. • All wind loads on RME in the current study are less than the lateral load coefficient, Cr, provided

in ASCE7-10.

iii

• When RME is fully surrounded by architectural screens the wind loads are about 45% of those provided by ASCE7-10 at location A and about 60% at location C.

• RME that is partially surrounded by architectural screens have wind loads that are 80% of those provided by ASCE7-10.

iv

Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ v

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ vi

Abbreviations & Symbols ............................................................................................................................. vi

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7

Experimental Setup ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Wind Flow Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 8

Building Details ....................................................................................................................................... 10

Architectural Screens and Configurations .............................................................................................. 10

Roof Mounted Equipment ...................................................................................................................... 12

Instrumentation ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Natural Frequency of RME Measurements ............................................................................................ 13

Test Configurations ................................................................................................................................. 15

Data Reduction ....................................................................................................................................... 17

Results & Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 18

Phase 1 vs. Phase 2 ................................................................................................................................. 18

Comparisons to ASCE 7-10 ...................................................................................................................... 21

Effect of Screen Type .............................................................................................................................. 23

Effect of Location on the Roof ................................................................................................................ 25

Effect of RME Height Relative to Architectural Screen Height ............................................................... 26

Effect of Screen Configuration ................................................................................................................ 28

Effect of Distance from Screens .............................................................................................................. 29

Loads on Screens ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Comparison to ASCE7-10 (2010) ............................................................................................................. 31

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 34

References .................................................................................................................................................. 36

Appendix A: Dimension Drawings of Screen and RME Locations ............................................................... 37

Appendix B: List of Tests Conducted ........................................................................................................... 40

Appendix C: Results for CMx ....................................................................................................................... 61

v

List of Figures Figure 1: Mean velocity (left) and turbulence intensity of longitudinal velocity component (Iu) (right) ..... 9 Figure 2: Power spectrum of longitudinal velocity component (PSu) ........................................................... 9 Figure 3: Installation of the steel roof deck on the test building inside the IBHS test chamber ................ 10 Figure 4: Cross sections of architectural screens (solid screen not shown) ............................................... 11 Figure 5: Photograph of a fully enclosed screen configuration at location B on the roof .......................... 11 Figure 6: Photograph of a partially enclosed screen configuration at location B on the roof ................... 12 Figure 7: Photograph of the “U” screen configuration at location C on the roof ....................................... 12 Figure 8: Photograph of a force balance mounted on the roof of the building ......................................... 13 Figure 9: Integrated wind energy by frequency measured on the roof of the building ............................. 14 Figure 10: Photograph of the two 1.2 m x 1.2 m boxes combined to form the 1.2 m x 2.4 m box. ........... 15 Figure 11: Locations of RME & screens at location A ................................................................................. 16 Figure 12: Locations of RME & screens at location B ................................................................................. 16 Figure 13: Locations of RME & screens at location C ................................................................................. 17 Figure 14: Comparison of phase 1 & phase 2 data for CFx ......................................................................... 18 Figure 15: CFx for isolated rme at all locations ........................................................................................... 19 Figure 16: CFy for isolated rme at all locations ........................................................................................... 20 Figure 17: CMx for isolated rme at all locations ......................................................................................... 20 Figure 18: CMy for isolated rme at all locations ......................................................................................... 21 Figure 19: Cf for Location A (Isolated Cases) .............................................................................................. 22 Figure 20: Cf for Location B (Isolated Cases) .............................................................................................. 22 Figure 21: Cf for Location C (Isolated Cases) .............................................................................................. 23 Figure 22: Effect of screen type on CFx for full screens .............................................................................. 24 Figure 23: Effect of screen type on CFx for partial screens ........................................................................ 24 Figure 24: Effect of RME location on CFx for full screens ........................................................................... 25 Figure 25: Effect of RME location on CFx for partial screens ...................................................................... 26 Figure 26: Effect of RME Height on CFx for full screens ............................................................................. 27 Figure 27: Effect of RME Height on CFx for partial screens ........................................................................ 27 Figure 28: Effect of screen configuration on CFx at Location B .................................................................. 28 Figure 29: Effect of screen configuration on CFx at Location C .................................................................. 29 Figure 30: Effect of the distance of the RME to the architectural wind screens ........................................ 30 Figure 31: Loads on screens vs. ASCE 7-10 requirement ............................................................................ 31 Figure 32: CFx on RME vs. ASCE 7-10 requirement (full screen) ................................................................ 32 Figure 33: CFx on RME vs. ASCE 7-10 requirement (partial screen) ........................................................... 33 Figure 34: CMx on RME vs. ASCE 7-10 requirement (full screen) ............................................................... 33 Figure 35: CMx on RME vs. ASCE 7-10 requirement (partial screen) ......................................................... 34 Figure 36: Dimension drawing of RME and screen locations at location A ................................................ 37 Figure 37: Dimension drawing of RME and screen locations at location B ................................................ 38 Figure 38: Dimension drawing of RME and screen locations at location C ................................................ 39 Figure 39: Effect of screen type on CMx for full screens ............................................................................ 61 Figure 40: Effect of screen type on CMx for partial screens ....................................................................... 61 Figure 41: Effect of RME location on CMx for full screens ......................................................................... 62 Figure 42: Effect of RME location on CMx for partial screens .................................................................... 62

vi

Figure 43: Effect of RME Height on CMx for full screens ............................................................................ 63 Figure 44: Effect of RME Height on CMx for partial screens ...................................................................... 63 Figure 45: Effect of screen configuration on CMx at Location B ................................................................ 64 Figure 46: Effect of screen configuration on CMx at Location C ................................................................ 64

List of Tables Table 1: List of all experimental configuration tested ................................................................................ 40

Abbreviations & Symbols A: Projected area of the roof-mounted equipment perpendicular to the wind direction CFx: Non-dimensional force coefficient in the x direction CFy: Non-dimensional force coefficient in the y direction CFz: Non-dimensional force coefficient in the z direction CMx: Non-dimensional moment coefficient for moment about the x axis CMy: Non-dimensional moment coefficient for moment about the y axis DOF: Degree of freedom F: Frequency Fx: Force in the x direction Fy: Force in the y direction Fz: Force in the z direction Cf: Force coefficient for roof-mounted equipment from the ASCE 7-10 hb: Height of the box simulating the RME hs: Height of the architectural screen IBHS: The Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety k: stiffness of force balance m: Mass of box simulating RME Mx: Moment about the x axis My: Moment about the y axis NFA: Net Free Area PSu: Power spectrum of the longitudinal velocity component RME: Roof-mounted equipment V: 3 second gust velocity at building roof height wn: Natural Frequency of Force balance and box simulating RME WOW: Wall of Wind Zo: Roughness length

7

Introduction Failure of roof mounted equipment (RME) during high wind events can cause significant damage to the building to which the RME is mounted as well as other buildings down wind. Failure of these elements can create openings in the roof and often leads to tears in roofing membranes that can result in partial or total loss of the roof cover system. Ensuing water intrusion can cause substantial damage to the building and its contents. Since sensitive electronic, manufacturing equipment and specialized equipment frequently requires a lead time for replacement, equipment replacement delays can prevent the business owner from returning to a normal level of service following the wind event. Combined property damage and business interruption not only results in a significant increase in insured losses, but may also affect a businesses’ market share or even its ability to survive after the event. Significant damage was observed to roof mounted equipment following Hurricane Katrina as outlined in FEMA 549 (2006).

Current code wind load provisions for roof mounted equipment in ASCE 7-10 (2010) are primarily based on wind loads obtained from model scale wind tunnel measurements by Hosoya et al., (2001) and Kopp and Traczuk, (2007). More recently a study by Erwin et. al. (2011) examined the loads on full-scale roof mounted air-conditioners using an early 6 fan array version of Florida International University's (FIU) Wall of Wind (WoW) facility. These full-scale tests potentially suffered from blockage issues, a very short duration of testing that resulted in large extrapolations, and the fact that the relative size of the equipment to the building was large which possibly distorted the results. However, these experiments did suggest that screens would be effective in reducing the loads on the equipment by 33% to 70%.

Full-scale experiments allow complex physical details of roof mounted equipment to be tested, which is often difficult if not impossible to simulate exactly at small model scale. Moreover, complex flow features, such as air flow though small openings such as through porous air conditioning units and screen walls or the flow underneath elevated air conditioning units are more difficult to simulate correctly at model scale due to both the model's size and Reynolds number effects. The primary challenge for experiments conducted in full scale wind tunnel facilities is the correct simulation and match of the atmospheric boundary layer wind characteristics that are important for reproducing the flow around the test building and the surface pressures. IBHS has demonstrated its ability to correctly simulate full-scale wind characteristics and surface pressures on low-rise buildings at a scale of 1:1.

IBHS conducted full-scale tests in 2011/2012 to determine wind loads on roof-mounted air conditioning units on top of a flat roof building (Morrison, 2013). The focus of this testing was to evaluate the effects of venting style (unit porosity), location on the roof, and elevation above the roof on wind loads. In general, the results from this testing showed good agreement with the coefficients provided by ASCE 7-10 (2010) for the configurations tested. Although it was not a focus of this testing, a reduction in wind loads on roof mounted air-conditioning units due to surrounding units was observed. The results obtained by Erwin et al. (2011) for two different screens (shapes) with identical net free areas exhibited a 15% difference in the reduction of wind loads on the air-conditioning units. This suggests that the opening shape may complicate the results and should be evaluated as part of the testing program. To provide guidance to designers or to allow for the codification of the shielding effects of screen walls the following research questions must be addressed:

8

1. Effect of net free area and aspect ratio of screen openings 2. Effects of location of both screen walls and RME on the roof of the building 3. Elevation ratios between RME and screen-walls 4. Distance of RME from screen walls 5. Configuration of screen walls - fully enclosed vs. partially enclosed This report presents results of an investigation to determine the effect architectural screens have on the wind loads applied to RME units on a flat roof low-rise building. Tests were conducted in the IBHS Research Center’s large wind tunnel using full-scale representations of RME mounted on the roof of a full-scale building. The primary objective of the investigation was to determine how the wind loads on RME change when architectural wind screens are present. The second object is to examine the wind loads on architectural screens themselves to determine if the RME coefficients provided in ASCE 7-10 (2010) are adequate for these types of structures. The research was funded in part by a grant from ASHRAE. IBHS staff worked with a project monitoring subcommittee (PMS) composed of ASHRAE member stakeholders to design the project plan and review preliminary results.

Experimental Setup The loads on simulated full-scale RME units were measured for installations on a full scale, flat roof low rise building in the IBHS Research Center’s wind tunnel. This wind tunnel uses 105 vane axial fans installed in 15 cells arranged in five towers with three rows of cells in each tower. Cells in the bottom row contain nine fans housed in arrays, which are in three fans wide by three fans tall. The middle and upper rows of cells contain six fans per cell in arrays that are three fans wide by two fans tall. Precast panels that form the horizontal boundaries between the lower/middle and middle/upper cells are located at 4.27 m and 6.71 m. General details of the IBHS large wind tunnel can be found in Liu et al. (2011) and Standohar-Alfano et al. (2017). Specific details regarding the experiment setup, instrumentation, and test plan are provided in this section.

Wind Flow Characteristics The flow field in the IBHS test chamber has undergone a detailed development and validation process. Throughout this process, adjustments were made to improve the match between the simulated flow and full-scale atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) flow characteristics. The most notable adjustment was the addition of spires to lower and middle fan cells, which proved to be critical in accurately duplicating surface pressures on a building (Standohar-Alfano, (2017)) Figure 1 presents vertical profiles of mean velocity and turbulence intensity of the longitudinal velocity component for the flow simulation used in this study compared to theoretical profiles obtained from ESDU (1982) and to field observations obtained from the Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory at Texas Tech University (Smith, 2010). The overall comparison between the IBHS results and the benchmark profiles is good. Solid heavy horizontal lines in Figure 1 identify the heights of the cell boundaries discussed above. Effects of the cell boundary can be observed in the mean velocity profile (left) but not in the turbulence profile (right). The longitudinal turbulence spectra, shown in Figure 2, shows generally good agreement with field and theoretical power spectra. However, a spectral gap (decrease in spectral content) exists between wave numbers of 0.01 and 0.1 in the IBHS flow field as compared to both the field observation and theoretical profiles. For wave numbers above 0.1, spectral content for TTU field data fall below theoretical curves as well as other data obtained from field measurements using equipment with higher frequency response characteristics.

9

Complete details of the flow simulation used in the investigation are presented in Standohar-Alfano et al., (2017). Despite this spectral gap, Standohar-Alfano et al. (2017) have shown that the surface pressures on a building in the IBHS test chamber match reasonably well with both field observations and model scale wind tunnel results. For this investigation, the mean (15-minute average) wind speed at roof height is approximately 40 m/s (90 mph) for all experiments.

FIGURE 1: MEAN VELOCITY (LEFT) AND TURBULENCE INTENSITY OF LONGITUDINAL VELOCITY COMPONENT (IU) (RIGHT)

FIGURE 2: POWER SPECTRUM OF LONGITUDINAL VELOCITY COMPONENT (PSU)

10

Building Details The building used for the current experiments was the same IBHS test frame building used in Morrison (2013) and consisted of a flat-roofed building with plan dimensions 9.14 m (30) by 12.2 m (40 ft.) and an eaves height of 3.96 m (13 ft.). The building was located at the center of the turntable in the IBHS wind tunnel with the windward wall nominally 8.7 m (28.5 ft.) downstream of the wind vanes. To meet objectives of the current project, modifications were made to the roof of the building to increase its overall stiffness. The required modifications included reducing the spacing of roof joists from 0.91 m (3 ft.) on center to 0.46 m (1.5 ft.) and covering the roof with 9.5 mm (3/8 in) steel plate which was welded to the roof joists. Figure 3 shows installation of the steel plate to the roof joists. Increasing stiffness of the roof was needed to provide a solid foundation for force balances used to measure wind loads on both the RME and the architectural wind screens, additional details of the internal force balances are provided in the Instrumentation section. The surface of the steel plate was approximately 3” below the height of the perimeter around the building, which in effect formed a 0.076 m (3 in.) tall, 0.1 m (4 in.) wide parapet surrounding the entire building. This parapet will have a minimal affect on the wind loads over the roof due to the small ratio between the parapet height and overall roof height.

FIGURE 3: INSTALLATION OF THE STEEL ROOF DECK ON THE TEST BUILDING INSIDE THE IBHS TEST CHAMBER

Architectural Screens and Configurations IBHS selected and purchased 3 architectural screens from 3 different manufacturers. An attempt was made to match the net free area’s (NFA) specified in the original URP proposal. Figure 4 presents the

11

cross-section configuration and NFA of the 3 architectural screens. In addition, a solid screen (i.e. NFA=0) was built by IBHS using plywood. Screens were mounted to an aluminum support frame which was then mounted to force balances on the roof.

FIGURE 4: CROSS SECTIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL SCREENS (SOLID SCREEN NOT SHOWN)

Two screen enclosure configurations were used in the current project. The first configuration fully enclosed the RME by surrounding it on all 4 sides (Figure 5). The second configuration partially enclosed the RME (Figure 6). In the partially enclosed screen configuration, the screens were always placed so that the RME was shielded for wind angles ranging from 0 to 90 degrees. Each wall measured 4.88 m (16 ft.) in length. All screens had a height (hs) of 1.22 m (4 ft.) and were supported entirely by force balances. The screens were mounted to the force balances with a 0.03 m (1 in.) clearance above the roof surface to ensure all wind forces were measured. The force balances were placed every 8 ft. along the length of the screen being tested. Following discussions of preliminary results with the PMS in June of 2016 a “U” screen configuration, shown in Figure 7, was also examined for a very select series of tests to contrast the results of fully and partially enclosed configurations.

FIGURE 5: PHOTOGRAPH OF A FULLY ENCLOSED SCREEN CONFIGURATION AT LOCATION B ON THE ROOF

12

FIGURE 6: PHOTOGRAPH OF A PARTIALLY ENCLOSED SCREEN CONFIGURATION AT LOCATION B ON THE ROOF

FIGURE 7: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE “U” SCREEN CONFIGURATION AT LOCATION C ON THE ROOF

Roof Mounted Equipment A previous study by Morrison (2013) found that the venting style of the RME does not significantly alter lateral wind loading from those on a solid unit for rectangularly shaped units. The Morrison (2013) study did indicate that the vertical forces were typically less for small air conditioning units than a solid box. The purpose of the current investigation was to examine the relative effect architectural wind screens have on RME wind loads, rather than the specific loads on the RME itself. Therefore, in consultation with the PMS, solid boxes were designed and built to represent RME in the present study. Morrison (2013) also showed that wind load coefficients on RME were not sensitive to the size of the units provided they were relatively small compared to the size of the roof. Two different box plan dimensions were used in the present study: 1.2 m x 1.2 m (4 ft. x 4 ft.) and 1.2 m x 2.4 m (4 ft. x 8 ft.), with most tests being conducted with the 1.2 m x 1.2 m (4 ft. x 4 ft.) box. Similar to the architectural screens, the boxes were fully supported by the force balances with a minimal clearance of 0.03 m (1 in.) above the roofs surface. For each plan dimension three different box heights (hb) were used: 0.91 m (3 ft.), 1.2 m (4 ft.), and 1.8 m (6 ft.) corresponding to hb/hs ratios of 0.75, 1 and 1.5. Figure 6 and Figure 7 shows the 1.2 m x 1.2 m (4 ft. x 4 ft.) box on the roof of the test building at box heights of 0.91 m (3 ft.) and 1.8 m (6 ft.) respectively.

13

Instrumentation The wind loads on both boxes and architectural screens were measured using custom-designed force balances shown in Figure 8. The balances consist of a tube that has been instrumented with a total of 20 strain gages over 10 different locations on either a steel or aluminum tube (i.e., 2 strain gages per location). The inset in Figure 8 shows the 2 strain gages installed perpendicular to each other at a single location. By combing the 20 stain gages in specific ways into groups of 4, the balances are capable of measuring forces in all 3 directions, Fx, Fy and Fz and overturning moments in 2 directions, Mx and My (Figure 11 for coordinate system). A total of 11 force balances were constructed by IBHS to measure wind loads on both the architectural screens and RME. Two of the force balances used steel tubes and were used to measure loads on the RME boxes while force balances with aluminum tubes were used to measure loads on the architectural screens. Each force balance was individually calibrated in all 5 degrees of freedom using an Instron universal testing machine. These calibrations resulted in a 25-element calibration matrix for each individual balance.

FIGURE 8: PHOTOGRAPH OF A FORCE BALANCE MOUNTED ON THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING

Natural Frequency of RME Measurements One key consideration when using force balances is the combined natural frequency of the balance and specimen. Since the screens were supported by multiple force balances it was less of a concern, however it was of substantial importance for the force balances to which the boxes were mounted. The natural frequency of the box-balance system is proportional to the square root of the mass over the stiffness such that,

𝑤𝑤𝑛𝑛 ∝ �𝑚𝑚𝑘𝑘

(1)

14

where wn is the natural frequency, m is the mass of the system and k is the stiffness of the force balance. The use of steel tubes helped increase the natural frequency of the box-balance system.

The experimentally measured natural frequency of the box-balance system on the roof of the building for the 1.2 m x 1.2 m (4 ft. x 4 ft.) box with heights of 0.91 m (3 ft.) and 1.83 m (6 ft.) were 10.25 and 7.32 Hz, respectively. Figure 9 presents the integrated wind energy measured on the roof of the test building. As shown in Figure 9, over 95% of the energy of the wind over the roof of the building is at a frequency below 5 Hz. As a result, data collected from the force balances are digitally filtered at 5 Hz to significantly reduce any fluctuations resulting from the natural frequency of the balance while still capturing nearly all the energy of the wind.

For the 1.2 m x 2.4 m (4 ft. x 8 ft.) box, the added weight would reduce the natural frequency of the box-balance system to be below 5 Hz. Therefore, instead of building the 1.2 m x 2.4 m (4 ft. x 8 ft.) box as a single unit two 1.2 m x 1.2 m (4 ft. x 4 ft.) boxes were constructed and mounted on separate force balances and placed within 1” of each other on the roof of the building. Figure 10 shows a picture of the two 1.2 m x 1.2 m (4 ft. x 8 ft.) boxes together forming the full 1.2 m x 2.4 m (4 ft. x 8 ft.) box on the roof of the building. A flexible gasket (white membrane in Figure 10) was placed between the two boxes to prevent any air flow in the gap without allowing any load transfer between the boxes. This solution allowed the frequency response of the 1.2 m x 2.4 m (4 ft. x 8 ft.) box to be identical to that of the 1.2 m x 1.2 m (4 ft. x 4 ft.) boxes of the same height. The total net forces and moments for the entire box were determined by combining the output of the two force balances.

FIGURE 9: INTEGRATED WIND ENERGY BY FREQUENCY MEASURED ON THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING

15

FIGURE 10: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TWO 1.2 M X 1.2 M BOXES COMBINED TO FORM THE 1.2 M X 2.4 M BOX.

Test Configurations Figure 11 through Figure 13 presents a plan view of the roof surface with the 3 different screen locations on the roof surface used during the test program. At each screen location on the roof, two possible locations of the RME were examined i.e. locations 1 and 2 for screen location A (Figure 11), locations 3 and 4 for screen location B (Figure 12), locations 5 and 6 for screen location C (Figure 13). The fully surrounded screen is shown by the orange and green lines at each location. The green section is the portion of the screen that is removed for the partial screen configurations as indicated in each of the figures. A fully dimensioned set of drawings for screen locations A, B and C are provided in Appendix A. The gap between the architectural screens and the steel roof was 1” at locations B and C and 4” at location A due to the 3” parapet discussed above. Figure 11 through Figure 13 also show the coordinate system used for the current study with Mx being associated with the force in the x-direction, Fx and My being associated with the force in the y-direction, Fy. This coordinate system convention was selected so that the moments are linked with the ASCE 7 wind load directions and do not follow the normal convention of moments acting about the indicated direction.

Overall the variables investigated by the current project include wind angle, location on the roof, type of architectural screen, distance between the equipment and architectural screen, fully and partially enclose screen configurations and height of the RME relative to the height of the screen. It is important to note that a full parametric study was not conducted over all the parameters listed meaning that not every possible combination of parameters was examined. Appendix B provides a complete list of the combinations of physical parameters investigated.

Testing for this project was broken into two Phases. Phase I consisted of shorter 300 second tests over wind angles of 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105, 120, 135, 150, 165 and 180 degrees. The purpose of phase I was to identify parameters, including wind angle, that substantially affected the wind loads on RME and those that had a minimal impact. Phase II consisted of longer 900 second test which is a more typical test duration in the IBHS facility for a smaller set of test configurations and wind angles. More than 900 tests were conducted over the course of both phases.

16

FIGURE 11: LOCATIONS OF RME & SCREENS AT LOCATION A

FIGURE 12: LOCATIONS OF RME & SCREENS AT LOCATION B

17

FIGURE 13: LOCATIONS OF RME & SCREENS AT LOCATION C

Data Reduction The forces and moments measured by the force balances were converted to non-dimensional force coefficients that are directly comparable to the GCr coefficients provided in ASCE 7-10 (2010). The method to convert the forces and moments measure by the force balances to non-dimensional coefficients was consistent with that used in Morrison (2013). Specifically:

𝐶𝐶𝐹𝐹𝑋𝑋 = 𝐹𝐹𝑋𝑋0.5𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉2𝐴𝐴

(2)

𝐶𝐶𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 = 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦0.5𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉2𝐴𝐴

(3)

𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝑋𝑋 = 𝑀𝑀𝑋𝑋0.5𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉2𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴

(4)

𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 = 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦

0.5𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉2𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 (5)

where V is the 3s gust wind velocity at roof height of the building, the area A, is the projected area of the unit perpendicular to the wind direction for CFx, CFy, CMx, CMy. The distance L, is the distance of the geometric center of the unit above the roof surface for CMx, CMy which was shown by Morrison (2012) to be a good approximation for the point of force application.

Force and moment coefficients developed can be compared directly to ASCE 7-10 (2010). However, since the purpose is to examine the change in wind loads on RME due to the presence of architectural screens most results are presented as a percentage of the isolated force or moment case when no architectural screen is present.

18

Results & Discussion Phase 1 vs. Phase 2 As discussed in the previous section, testing for this project was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, certain configurations were tested under a 5-minute wind time history to determine both critical wind angles and key parameters that have the largest impact on RME wind loads. Phase 2 consisted of a 15-minute time history at those critical wind angles with an emphasis on those critical variables. Figure 14 shows the comparison of the wind load coefficient CFx between the two phases for overlapping cases. The mean coefficients for both phases match very well, while the peak coefficients display similar trends versus wind angle. As is common with wind loading, there is more variability in the peak coefficients than the mean coefficients. While peak coefficients matching very well at certain wind angles they do not match as well at other wind angles. This variability in single peak values is not unexpected as difference in peak values can occur in wind load data even from consecutive experiments with an identical configuration. In addition, because Phase 1 used a shorter truncated wind speed record the ratio of the peak 3s gust to mean wind speed ratio was approximately 6% higher than those of Phase 2, which may partially explain the higher peak values in the Phase 1 data. Overall, the trends with wind angle between Phase 1 and 2 in both the mean and peak coefficients are similar.

FIGURE 14: COMPARISON OF PHASE 1 & PHASE 2 DATA FOR CFX

Figure 15 to Figure 18 show the mean coefficients acting on the RME versus wind angle for each of the RME heights at all locations. The figures show CFx, CFy, CMx and CMy respectively. The variation of the wind loading coefficient for each degree of freedom (DOF) seems reasonable with the mean being approximately zero at a wind angle of 90° for the x-components, and having a peak at a wind angle of 90° for the y-components (although with a lot of variation due to the height of the RME, and the location of

Wind Angle

CFx

= Phase 1 (Peak)= Phase 2 (Peak)

= Phase 1 (Mean)= Phase 2 (Mean)

-2.000

-1.500

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

120 140 160 180

Location A - 3' RME

-2.000

-1.500

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

120 140 160 180

Location A - 6' RME

-2.000

-1.500

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

120 140 160 180

Location C - 3' RME

-2.000

-1.500

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

120 140 160 180

Location C - 6' RME

19

the shear layer at that wind angle). Over the wind angles tested the largest wind loads were observed in the x-components (both CFx and CMx) at wind angles ranging from 0° to 60° and 120° to 180°. The magnitude of forces between each set of wind direction ranges is similar. However, because the placement of the architectural screens the wind loads from wind angles of 0° to 60° are reduced and thus the wind angles with the largest loads for all configurations are from 120° to 180°. Based on these observations testing during Phase 2 focused on wind angles between 120° to 180°.

FIGURE 15: CFX FOR ISOLATED RME AT ALL LOCATIONS

-0.600

-0.400

-0.200

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

CFx

Wind Angle

Location A - 3' RME

Location A - 4' RME

Location A - 6' RME

Location B - 3' RME

Location B - 4' RME

Location B - 6' RME

Location C - 3' RME

Location C - 4' RME

Location C - 6' RME

20

FIGURE 16: CFY FOR ISOLATED RME AT ALL LOCATIONS

FIGURE 17: CMX FOR ISOLATED RME AT ALL LOCATIONS

-0.600

-0.400

-0.200

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

CFy

Wind Angle

Location A - 3' RME

Location A - 4' RME

Location A - 6' RME

Location B - 3' RME

Location B - 4' RME

Location B - 6' RME

Location C - 3' RME

Location C - 4' RME

Location C - 6' RME

-0.800

-0.600

-0.400

-0.200

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

CMx

Wind Angle

Location A - 3' RME

Location A - 4' RME

Location A - 6' RME

Location B - 3' RME

Location B - 4' RME

Location B - 6' RME

Location C - 3' RME

Location C - 4' RME

Location C - 6' RME

21

FIGURE 18: CMY FOR ISOLATED RME AT ALL LOCATIONS

Comparisons to ASCE 7-10 Figure 19 to Figure 21 present a summary of the maximum, minimum and mean for CFx, CFy, CMx and CMy over all wind angles from both phases at locations A, B, and C respectively. Generally, the results at each location on the roof are similar with slightly lower peak coefficients for each DOF at location B. However, this small reduction is within the scatter of the data. For all DOF, the wind load coefficients in ASCE 7-10 (2010) envelope the measured peak coefficients consistent with the findings of Morrison et al. (2013). Results presented in the following sections will present results from the x-component forces, since as previously discussed and shown in Figure 15 to Figure 18 they represent larger forces and moments over the wind angles tested than those associated with CFy and CMy. The effects of each architectural screen configuration have been found to be consistent for both CFx and CMx. Consequently, results presented in the body of the report are for CFx with corresponding CMx coefficients for each plot being provided in appendix C. Both CFx and CMx results will be presented normalised to the isolated case for each architectural screen configuration so that the effect of the screens can be easily examined.

-0.800

-0.600

-0.400

-0.200

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

CMy

Wind Angle

Location A - 3' RME

Location A - 4' RME

Location A - 6' RME

Location B - 3' RME

Location B - 4' RME

Location B - 6' RME

Location C - 3' RME

Location C - 4' RME

Location C - 6' RME

22

FIGURE 19: CF FOR LOCATION A (ISOLATED CASES)

FIGURE 20: CF FOR LOCATION B (ISOLATED CASES)

-2.500

-2.000

-1.500

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

Fx Fy Mx My Fz

Cf

= Maximum

= Mean

= Minimum

= 3' RME

= 4' RME

= 6' RME

= ASCE 7-10

-2.500

-2.000

-1.500

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

Fx Fy Mx My Fz

Cf

= Maximum

= Mean

= Minimum

= 3' RME

= 4' RME

= 6' RME

= ASCE 7-10

23

FIGURE 21: CF FOR LOCATION C (ISOLATED CASES)

Effect of Screen Type Figure 22 and Figure 23 show the comparison of the wind loads on the 4 ft. x 4 ft. x 3 ft. RME when partially and fully surrounded respectively by different architectural screens at locations A, B and C. Wind loads for each configuration are normalised by the isolated wind loads at that location (i.e. values less than 1 indicate a reduction in wind loads due the architectural screens). The figure demonstrates that while there is some variability in the amount of reduction between the different architectural screens, there is no indication that the type of screen significantly influences the loads on the RME it surrounds.

Wind loads on RME are reduced for all cases when they are fully surrounded by the architectural screens. When the RME is only partially surrounded reduction are significantly less than the fully surrounded case and in some cases, there is no reduction. As the RME extends above the top of the screen the amount of reduction as compared to the isolated case is reduced. These effects are discussed further in the sections below.

-2.500

-2.000

-1.500

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

Fx Fy Mx My Fz

Cf

= Maximum

= Mean

= Minimum

= 3' RME

= 4' RME

= 6' RME

= ASCE 7-10

24

FIGURE 22: EFFECT OF SCREEN TYPE ON CFX FOR FULL SCREENS

FIGURE 23: EFFECT OF SCREEN TYPE ON CFX FOR PARTIAL SCREENS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Location A - Full 3'RME

Location A - Full 6'RME

Location B - Full 3'RME

Location B - Full 6'RME

Location C - Full 3'RME

Location C - Full 6'RME

CFx/

CFx

(isol

ated

)

Isolated Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3 Solid

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Location A - Full 3'RME

Location A - Full 6'RME

Location B - Full 3'RME

Location B - Full 6'RME

Location C - Full 3'RME

Location C - Full 6'RME

CFx/

CFx

(isol

ated

)

Isolated Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3 Solid

25

Effect of Location on the Roof Figure 24 and Figure 25 present how the location on the roof affects wind loads on 3’ RME for fully enclosed, and partially enclosed configurations, respectively. Note that data for several screens at each location are presented but not identified specifically in Figure 24 and Figure 25 for simplicity. All wind loads on RME in Figure 24 and Figure 25 are normalized by the wind loads on the isolated RME at location A. These figures show that the wind loads on are the lowest at the center of the building when there is no architectural screen. However, for both partially and fully enclosed architectural screen configurations, RME wind loads do not trend with location on the roof. (This is also shown from Figure 19 to Figure 21 in the similarity of mean and peak coefficients, as well as in Figure 22 showing similar reductions across different locations.) Wind loads on RME for partially and fully enclosed architectural screen configurations are lower than those for the isolated case at location A, but wind load reductions for RME when using a partial screen configuration reduces as its moves towards the center of the building.

FIGURE 24: EFFECT OF RME LOCATION ON CFX FOR FULL SCREENS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Isolated Screens

CFx/

CFx

(isol

ated

@ L

ocat

ion

A)

Location A Location B Location C

26

FIGURE 25: EFFECT OF RME LOCATION ON CFX FOR PARTIAL SCREENS

Effect of RME Height Relative to Architectural Screen Height Figure 26 and Figure 27 present the effect of RME height relative to architectural screen height for both fully enclosed and partially closed configurations respectively. Results are presented for locations A and B. The height of the architectural screen is 1.2 m (48 in.) in all cases. When the height of the RME is shorter than the architectural screens there is a larger reduction in wind loads than when the RME extend above the architectural screen. In fact, for the partial screen configuration the reduction of wind loads on RME is negligible compared to the isolated case.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Isolated Screens

CFx/

CFx

(isol

ated

@ L

ocat

ion

A)

Location A Location B Location C

27

FIGURE 26: EFFECT OF RME HEIGHT ON CFX FOR FULL SCREENS

FIGURE 27: EFFECT OF RME HEIGHT ON CFX FOR PARTIAL SCREENS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

3' RME - Location A 6' RME - Location A 3' RME - Location B 6' RME - Location B

CFx/

CFx

(isol

ated

)

Isolated Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3 Solid

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

3' RME - Location A 6' RME - Location A 3' RME - Location B 6' RME - Location B

CFx/

CFx

(isol

ated

)

Isolated Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3 Solid

28

Effect of Screen Configuration Figure 28 and Figure 29 show the comparison of the wind loads on RME when partially and fully surrounded by different architectural screens at locations B and C. At both locations, the reduction in wind loads on the RME relative to the isolated case is much larger for the full screen configuration than both the partial and “U” screen configurations. In fact, at location C the data show that overall there is no reduction in wind loads relative to the isolated RME case for partial screen configurations.

FIGURE 28: EFFECT OF SCREEN CONFIGURATION ON CFX AT LOCATION B

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3' RME - Screen 2 3' RME - Solid 6' RME - Screen 2 6' RME - Solid

CFx/

CFx

(isol

ated

)

Full Screen Partial Screen

29

FIGURE 29: EFFECT OF SCREEN CONFIGURATION ON CFX AT LOCATION C

Effect of Distance from Screens Figure 30 shows a graph of the ratios of the forces acting on the RME for Locations 3 & 4, grouped together by RME height and screen configuration. With the exception of the 3’ RME partial configuration the wind loads at location 3 are larger than those at location 4. While these is some variability in the data the results indicate that the change in wind loads on the RME due the presence of architectural screen is negligible between location 3 and location 4. This suggests that over the limited parameters investigated in this study the distance from the architectural screen to the RME has a minimal effect on the wind loads on RME.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

3' RME - Screen 3 3' RME - Solid 6' RME - Screen 3 6' RME - Solid

CFx/

CFx

(isol

ated

)

Full Screen Partial Screen U Screen

30

FIGURE 30: EFFECT OF THE DISTANCE OF THE RME TO THE ARCHITECTURAL WIND SCREENS

Loads on Screens Figure 31 shows a graph of the normalized resultant force on the architectural screens surrounding the RME, grouped together by location, screen configuration, and height. The ASCE 7-10 Cr coefficient for lateral load on RME is also shown in the figure. It is to be noted that normalized loads are higher on the fully enclosed than the partially enclosed because both screen configurations were normalized by the same project area, however they are more than half. This suggests that the wind loads on the added sections of architectural screen that are present in a fully enclosed configuration are reduced by the upstream sections. There is no clear trend of significant change in wind loads on architectural screens based on location of type and all configurations have wind loads less than the lateral Cr provided by ASCE 7-10 (2010).

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

3' RME 3' RME 3' RME 6' RME 6' RME 6' RME

Isolated Full Partial Isolated Full Partial

CFX/

CFX

Ratio of Location 3 / Location 4

31

FIGURE 31: LOADS ON SCREENS VS. ASCE 7-10 REQUIREMENT

Comparison to ASCE7-10 (2010) Figure 32 and Figure 33 present CFx, while Figure 34 and Figure 35 present CMx for RME, grouped together by location and RME height, for full and partial screens, respectively. The ASCE 7-10 lateral wind load coefficient, Cr, is also shown in both figures. For all configurations tested, the wind loads on RME measured during this study are less than those provided in ASCE7-10 (2010). As previously discussed the wind loads on RME who are taller than the architectural screens are larger than those on that are shorter than the architectural screens particularly at location C. Wind load reductions for full screen configurations are largest at location A and decrease at location B and C as the RME moves towards the center of the roof. With the full architectural screen in place, the wind load coefficient for the worst-case configuration (considering all RME heights and both CFx and CMx) at location A were about 45 percent of the ASCE7-10 (2010) coefficient. The wind load coefficients at locations B and C are also reduced significantly below ASCE 7-10 coefficients with a minimum reduction of about 60 percent.

As previously discussed the reductions in RME wind loads for partial screen configurations are less than for the full screen configurations, with the reductions being negligible at location C. However, the isolated wind loads for location C are lower than those for location A. The worst-case wind load coefficient for partial screen configurations at all locations is about 80 percent of the ASCE7-10 (2010), lateral coefficient.

When considering possible codification of the current result, the reduction in loads on RME presented herein are applicable within the range of parameters tested. Caution should be used to extend the results beyond the ratio of parameters tested herein as they may not hold. One such example is that no change

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Location A - Full 3` Location A -Partial 3`

Location B - Full 3` Location B -Partial 3`

Location C - Full 3` Location C -Partial 3`

CFx

Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3 Solid ASCE 7-10

32

in load reduction on RME due the presence of architectural screens based on distance of the RME to the screen was observed. However, the distance between the architectural screen and RME tested in the present study were in the range of 1.4 to 3.3 times the height of the screen. It is expected that as this distance between the architectural screen and RME is increased there would be an effect on the wind loads on RME at some critical distance.

FIGURE 32: CFX ON RME VS. ASCE 7-10 REQUIREMENT (FULL SCREEN)

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

Location A -3'

Location A -4'

Location A -6'

Location B -3'

Location B -4'

Location B -6'

Location C -3'

Location C -4'

Location C -6'

CFx

Isolated Shielded ASCE 7-10

33

FIGURE 33: CFX ON RME VS. ASCE 7-10 REQUIREMENT (PARTIAL SCREEN)

FIGURE 34: CMX ON RME VS. ASCE 7-10 REQUIREMENT (FULL SCREEN)

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

Location A -3'

Location A -4'

Location A -6'

Location B -3'

Location B -4'

Location B -6'

Location C -3'

Location C -4'

Location C -6'

CFx

Isolated Shielded ASCE 7-10

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

Location A -3'

Location A -4'

Location A -6'

Location B -3'

Location B -4'

Location B -6'

Location C -3'

Location C -4'

Location C -6'

CMx

Isolated Shielded ASCE 7-10

34

FIGURE 35: CMX ON RME VS. ASCE 7-10 REQUIREMENT (PARTIAL SCREEN)

Conclusions The following conclusions can be drawn from results of the investigation into the wind loads on various types of roof-mounted equipment:

• All types of architectural screens (including solid screens) create similar reductions in wind loads on RME. Although there are small differences, there are no clear trend of one type of screen providing more of a load reduction than another. For codification purposes, it is proper to assume a common reduction factor across all screen types.

• Partial screen configurations offer no appreciable reduction in wind loads on RME, and can even lead to an increase in the loads on the RME if located near the center of the roof. It is recommended to have a different factor for partial vs. full screen configurations.

• The location of the RME on the roof does not appear to influence the wind load reduction on the RME or the screens. However, the results have shown that the wind loads on RME towards the center of the building (location C) are approximately 20% less than those near the corner.

• Distance between the architectural screen and the RME does not appear to have an impact on wind loads for the configurations tested

• Results suggest that the reduction of the wind loads on the RME is lower when the RME is taller than the screens that surround it. For codification purposes, a factor that considers the ratio of the height of the RME over the height of the screens should be used.

• Wind loads for all architectural screens in each location and configuration are less than the RME lateral load coefficient provided by ASCE 7-10 (2010).

• All wind loads on RME in the current study are less than the lateral load coefficient, Cr, provided in ASCE7-10.

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

Location A -3'

Location A -4'

Location A -6'

Location B -3'

Location B -4'

Location B -6'

Location C -3'

Location C -4'

Location C -6'

CMx

Isolated Shielded ASCE 7-10

35

• When RME is fully surrounded by architectural screens the wind loads are about 45% of those provided by ASCE7-10 at location A and about 60% at location C.

• Wind loads on RME partially surrounded by architectural screens are much less dependent on roof location, even though there is a trend of reducing wind loads for the isolated case as the equipment moves towards the center of the roof. The worst case wind load coefficients for partial screens are about 80 percent of the ASCE7-10 (2010) coefficients.

36

References American Society for Civil Engineers. (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.

Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Engineering Data Science Unit (ESDU). (1982). Strong winds in the atmospheric boundary layer Part 1: mean-hourly wind speeds. Data item 82026.

Erwin, J., Chowdhury, A., & Bitsuamlak, G. (2011). Wind loads rooftop equipment mounted on a flat roof. Journal of Wind and Engineering, 8(1), 23-42.

Federal Emergency Managament Agency (FEMA). (2006). Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast Mitigation Assessment Team Report Building Performance Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance. FEMA 549.

Hosoya, N., Cermak, J., & Steele, C. (2001). A wind-tunnel study of a cubic rooftop ac unit on a low building. 1st Americas Conference on Wind Engineering. Clemson, SC, USA.

Kopp, G., & Traczuk, G. (2007). Wind Loads on Roof-Mounted Cube. London, ON: The Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory.

Liu, Z., Brown, T., Cope, A., & Reinhold, T. (2011). Simulation Wind Conditions / Events in the IBHS Reseach Center Full-Scale Test Facility. 13th International Conference on Wind Engineering. Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Morrison, M. (2013). Wind Loads on Small Roof-Mounted Equipment Units. Richburg, South Carolina: Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety.

Smith, D. (2010). Validation of Wind and Wind-Induced Pressure Data Collected at the Institute for Building and Home Safety's State-of-the-Art Multi-Peril Applied Research and Training Facility. Lubbock, TX, USA: Wind Science and Engineering Research Center.

Standohar-Alfano, C. D., Estes, H., Johnston, T., Morrison, M. J., & Brown-Giammanco, T. M. (2017). Reducing Losses from Wind-Related Natural Perils: Research at the IBHS Research Center. Frontiers in the Built Environment, 3, 9. doi:10.3389/fbuil.2017.00009

37

Appendix A: Dimension Drawings of Screen and RME Locations

FIGURE 36: DIMENSION DRAWING OF RME AND SCREEN LOCATIONS AT LOCATION A

38

FIGURE 37: DIMENSION DRAWING OF RME AND SCREEN LOCATIONS AT LOCATION B

39

FIGURE 38: DIMENSION DRAWING OF RME AND SCREEN LOCATIONS AT LOCATION C

40

Appendix B: List of Tests Conducted TABLE 1: LIST OF ALL EXPERIMENTAL CONFIGURATION TESTED

Testing Phase RME Location Screen Enclosure Type RME Height (ft) Architectural Screen Angle

1 C Partial 3 1 0

1 C Partial 3 1 15

1 C Partial 3 1 30

1 C Partial 3 1 45

1 C Partial 3 1 60

1 C Partial 3 1 75

1 C Partial 3 1 90

1 C Partial 3 1 105

1 C Partial 3 1 120

1 C Partial 3 1 135

1 C Partial 3 1 150

1 C Partial 3 1 165

1 C Partial 3 1 180

1 C Partial 6 1 0

1 C Partial 6 1 15

1 C Partial 6 1 30

1 C Partial 6 1 45

1 C Partial 6 1 60

1 C Partial 6 1 75

1 C Partial 6 1 90

1 C Partial 6 1 105

1 C Partial 6 1 120

1 C Partial 6 1 135

1 C Partial 6 1 150

1 C Partial 6 1 165

1 C Partial 6 1 180

1 C Full 3 1 0

1 C Full 3 1 15

1 C Full 3 1 30

1 C Full 3 1 45

1 C Full 3 1 60

1 C Full 3 1 75

1 C Full 3 1 90

1 C Full 3 1 105

1 C Full 3 1 120

41

1 C Full 3 1 135

1 C Full 3 1 150

1 C Full 3 1 165

1 C Full 3 1 180

1 C Full 6 1 0

1 C Full 6 1 15

1 C Full 6 1 30

1 C Full 6 1 45

1 C Full 6 1 60

1 C Full 6 1 75

1 C Full 6 1 90

1 C Full 6 1 105

1 C Full 6 1 120

1 C Full 6 1 135

1 C Full 6 1 150

1 C Full 6 1 165

1 C Full 6 1 180

1 A Partial 3 2 0

1 A Partial 3 2 15

1 A Partial 3 2 30

1 A Partial 3 2 45

1 A Partial 3 2 60

1 A Partial 3 2 75

1 A Partial 3 2 90

1 A Partial 3 2 105

1 A Partial 3 2 120

1 A Partial 3 2 135

1 A Partial 3 2 150

1 A Partial 3 2 165

1 A Partial 3 2 180

1 A Partial 6 2 0

1 A Partial 6 2 15

1 A Partial 6 2 30

1 A Partial 6 2 45

1 A Partial 6 2 60

1 A Partial 6 2 75

1 A Partial 6 2 90

1 A Partial 6 2 105

1 A Partial 6 2 120

1 A Partial 6 2 135

1 A Partial 6 2 150

1 A Partial 6 2 165

42

1 A Partial 6 2 180

1 A Full 3 2 0

1 A Full 3 2 15

1 A Full 3 2 30

1 A Full 3 2 45

1 A Full 3 2 60

1 A Full 3 2 75

1 A Full 3 2 90

1 A Full 3 2 105

1 A Full 3 2 120

1 A Full 3 2 135

1 A Full 3 2 150

1 A Full 3 2 165

1 A Full 3 2 180

1 A Full 6 2 0

1 A Full 6 2 15

1 A Full 6 2 30

1 A Full 6 2 45

1 A Full 6 2 60

1 A Full 6 2 75

1 A Full 6 2 90

1 A Full 6 2 105

1 A Full 6 2 120

1 A Full 6 2 135

1 A Full 6 2 150

1 A Full 6 2 165

1 A Full 6 2 180

1 A Full 3 2 0

1 A Full 3 2 15

1 A Full 3 2 30

1 A Full 3 2 45

1 A Full 3 2 60

1 A Full 3 2 75

1 A Full 3 2 90

1 A Full 3 2 105

1 A Full 3 2 120

1 A Full 3 2 135

1 A Full 3 2 150

1 A Full 3 2 165

1 A Full 3 2 180

1 A Full 6 2 0

1 A Full 6 2 15

43

1 A Full 6 2 30

1 A Full 6 2 45

1 A Full 6 2 60

1 A Full 6 2 75

1 A Full 6 2 90

1 A Full 6 2 105

1 A Full 6 2 120

1 A Full 6 2 135

1 A Full 6 2 150

1 A Full 6 2 165

1 A Full 6 2 180

1 A Partial 3 2 0

1 A Partial 3 2 15

1 A Partial 3 2 30

1 A Partial 3 2 45

1 A Partial 3 2 60

1 A Partial 3 2 75

1 A Partial 3 2 90

1 A Partial 3 2 105

1 A Partial 3 2 120

1 A Partial 3 2 135

1 A Partial 3 2 150

1 A Partial 3 2 165

1 A Partial 3 2 180

1 A Partial 6 2 0

1 A Partial 6 2 15

1 A Partial 6 2 30

1 A Partial 6 2 45

1 A Partial 6 2 60

1 A Partial 6 2 75

1 A Partial 6 2 90

1 A Partial 6 2 105

1 A Partial 6 2 120

1 A Partial 6 2 135

1 A Partial 6 2 150

1 A Partial 6 2 165

1 A Partial 6 2 180

1 B Full 3 2 0

1 B Full 3 2 15

1 B Full 3 2 30

1 B Full 3 2 45

1 B Full 3 2 60

44

1 B Full 3 2 75

1 B Full 3 2 90

1 B Full 3 2 105

1 B Full 3 2 120

1 B Full 3 2 135

1 B Full 3 2 150

1 B Full 3 2 165

1 B Full 6 2 180

1 B Full 6 2 0

1 B Full 6 2 15

1 B Full 6 2 30

1 B Full 6 2 45

1 B Full 6 2 60

1 B Full 6 2 75

1 B Full 6 2 90

1 B Full 6 2 105

1 B Full 6 2 120

1 B Full 6 2 135

1 B Full 6 2 150

1 B Full 6 2 165

1 B Full 6 2 180

1 B Partial 3 2 0

1 B Partial 3 2 15

1 B Partial 3 2 30

1 B Partial 3 2 45

1 B Partial 3 2 60

1 B Partial 3 2 75

1 B Partial 3 2 90

1 B Partial 3 2 105

1 B Partial 3 2 120

1 B Partial 3 2 135

1 B Partial 3 2 150

1 B Partial 3 2 165

1 B Partial 3 2 180

1 B Partial 6 2 0

1 B Partial 6 2 15

1 B Partial 6 2 30

1 B Partial 6 2 45

1 B Partial 6 2 60

1 B Partial 6 2 75

1 B Partial 6 2 90

1 B Partial 6 2 105

45

1 B Partial 6 2 120

1 B Partial 6 2 135

1 B Partial 6 2 150

1 B Partial 6 2 165

1 B Partial 6 2 180

1 C Full 3 2 0

1 C Full 3 2 15

1 C Full 3 2 30

1 C Full 3 2 45

1 C Full 3 2 60

1 C Full 3 2 75

1 C Full 3 2 90

1 C Full 3 2 105

1 C Full 3 2 120

1 C Full 3 2 135

1 C Full 3 2 150

1 C Full 3 2 165

1 C Full 3 2 180

1 C Full 6 2 0

1 C Full 6 2 15

1 C Full 6 2 30

1 C Full 6 2 45

1 C Full 6 2 60

1 C Full 6 2 75

1 C Full 6 2 90

1 C Full 6 2 105

1 C Full 6 2 120

1 C Full 6 2 135

1 C Full 6 2 150

1 C Full 6 2 165

1 C Full 6 2 180

1 C Partial 3 2 0

1 C Partial 3 2 15

1 C Partial 3 2 30

1 C Partial 3 2 45

1 C Partial 3 2 60

1 C Partial 3 2 75

1 C Partial 3 2 90

1 C Partial 3 2 105

1 C Partial 3 2 120

1 C Partial 3 2 135

1 C Partial 3 2 150

46

1 C Partial 3 2 165

1 C Partial 3 2 180

1 C Partial 6 2 0

1 C Partial 6 2 15

1 C Partial 6 2 30

1 C Partial 6 2 45

1 C Partial 6 2 60

1 C Partial 6 2 75

1 C Partial 6 2 90

1 C Partial 6 2 105

1 C Partial 6 2 120

1 C Partial 6 2 135

1 C Partial 6 2 150

1 C Partial 6 2 165

1 C Partial 6 2 180

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 0

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 15

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 30

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 45

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 60

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 75

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 90

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 105

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 120

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 135

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 150

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 165

1 A Isolated 3 Isolated 180

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 0

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 15

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 30

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 45

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 60

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 75

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 90

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 105

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 120

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 135

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 150

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 165

1 A Isolated 6 Isolated 180

1 A Partial 3 3 0

47

1 A Partial 3 3 15

1 A Partial 3 3 30

1 A Partial 3 3 45

1 A Partial 3 3 60

1 A Partial 3 3 75

1 A Partial 3 3 90

1 A Partial 3 3 105

1 A Partial 3 3 120

1 A Partial 3 3 135

1 A Partial 3 3 150

1 A Partial 3 3 165

1 A Partial 3 3 180

1 A Partial 4 3 0

1 A Partial 4 3 15

1 A Partial 4 3 30

1 A Partial 4 3 45

1 A Partial 4 3 60

1 A Partial 4 3 75

1 A Partial 4 3 90

1 A Partial 4 3 105

1 A Partial 4 3 120

1 A Partial 4 3 135

1 A Partial 4 3 150

1 A Partial 4 3 165

1 A Partial 4 3 180

1 A Partial 6 3 0

1 A Partial 6 3 15

1 A Partial 6 3 30

1 A Partial 6 3 45

1 A Partial 6 3 60

1 A Partial 6 3 75

1 A Partial 6 3 90

1 A Partial 6 3 105

1 A Partial 6 3 120

1 A Partial 6 3 135

1 A Partial 6 3 150

1 A Partial 6 3 165

1 A Partial 6 3 180

1 A Full 3 3 0

1 A Full 3 3 15

1 A Full 3 3 30

1 A Full 3 3 45

48

1 A Full 3 3 60

1 A Full 3 3 75

1 A Full 3 3 90

1 A Full 3 3 105

1 A Full 3 3 120

1 A Full 3 3 135

1 A Full 3 3 150

1 A Full 3 3 165

1 A Full 3 3 180

1 A Full 4 3 0

1 A Full 4 3 15

1 A Full 4 3 30

1 A Full 4 3 45

1 A Full 4 3 60

1 A Full 4 3 75

1 A Full 4 3 90

1 A Full 4 3 105

1 A Full 4 3 120

1 A Full 4 3 135

1 A Full 4 3 150

1 A Full 4 3 165

1 A Full 4 3 180

1 A Full 6 3 0

1 A Full 6 3 15

1 A Full 6 3 30

1 A Full 6 3 45

1 A Full 6 3 60

1 A Full 6 3 75

1 A Full 6 3 90

1 A Full 6 3 105

1 A Full 6 3 120

1 A Full 6 3 135

1 A Full 6 3 150

1 A Full 6 3 165

1 A Full 6 3 180

1 C Full 3 3 0

1 C Full 3 3 30

1 C Full 3 3 60

1 C Full 3 3 90

1 C Full 3 3 120

1 C Full 3 3 135

1 C Full 3 3 150

49

1 C Full 3 3 165

1 C Full 3 3 180

1 C Full 6 3 0

1 C Full 6 3 30

1 C Full 6 3 60

1 C Full 6 3 90

1 C Full 6 3 120

1 C Full 6 3 135

1 C Full 6 3 150

1 C Full 6 3 165

1 C Full 6 3 180

1 C Partial 3 3 0

1 C Partial 3 3 15

1 C Partial 3 3 30

1 C Partial 3 3 45

1 C Partial 3 3 60

1 C Partial 3 3 75

1 C Partial 3 3 90

1 C Partial 3 3 105

1 C Partial 3 3 120

1 C Partial 3 3 135

1 C Partial 3 3 150

1 C Partial 3 3 165

1 C Partial 3 3 180

1 C Partial 6 3 0

1 C Partial 6 3 15

1 C Partial 6 3 30

1 C Partial 6 3 45

1 C Partial 6 3 60

1 C Partial 6 3 75

1 C Partial 6 3 90

1 C Partial 6 3 105

1 C Partial 6 3 120

1 C Partial 6 3 135

1 C Partial 6 3 150

1 C Partial 6 3 165

1 C Partial 6 3 180

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 15

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 30

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 45

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 60

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 75

50

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 90

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 105

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 120

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 135

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 150

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 165

1 B Isolated 3 Isolated 180

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 0

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 15

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 30

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 45

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 60

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 75

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 90

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 105

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 120

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 135

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 150

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 165

1 B Isolated 6 Isolated 180

1 C Partial 3 Solid 0

1 C Partial 3 Solid 15

1 C Partial 3 Solid 30

1 C Partial 3 Solid 45

1 C Partial 3 Solid 60

1 C Partial 3 Solid 75

1 C Partial 3 Solid 90

1 C Partial 3 Solid 105

1 C Partial 3 Solid 120

1 C Partial 3 Solid 135

1 C Partial 3 Solid 150

1 C Partial 3 Solid 165

1 C Partial 3 Solid 180

1 C Partial 6 Solid 0

1 C Partial 6 Solid 15

1 C Partial 6 Solid 30

1 C Partial 6 Solid 45

1 C Partial 6 Solid 60

1 C Partial 6 Solid 75

1 C Partial 6 Solid 90

1 C Partial 6 Solid 105

1 C Partial 6 Solid 120

51

1 C Partial 6 Solid 135

1 C Partial 6 Solid 150

1 C Partial 6 Solid 165

1 C Partial 6 Solid 180

1 C Full 3 Solid 0

1 C Full 3 Solid 15

1 C Full 3 Solid 30

1 C Full 3 Solid 60

1 C Full 3 Solid 75

1 C Full 3 Solid 90

1 C Full 3 Solid 105

1 C Full 3 Solid 120

1 C Full 3 Solid 135

1 C Full 3 Solid 150

1 C Full 3 Solid 165

1 C Full 3 Solid 180

1 C Full 6 Solid 0

1 C Full 6 Solid 15

1 C Full 6 Solid 30

1 C Full 6 Solid 45

1 C Full 6 Solid 60

1 C Full 6 Solid 75

1 C Full 6 Solid 90

1 C Full 6 Solid 105

1 C Full 6 Solid 120

1 C Full 6 Solid 135

1 C Full 6 Solid 165

1 C Full 6 Solid 180

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 0

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 15

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 30

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 45

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 60

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 75

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 90

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 105

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 120

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 135

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 150

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 165

1 C Isolated 3 Isolated 180

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 0

52

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 15

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 30

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 45

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 60

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 75

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 90

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 105

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 120

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 135

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 150

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 165

1 C Isolated 6 Isolated 180

1 A Full 3 Solid 0

1 A Full 3 Solid 30

1 A Full 3 Solid 60

1 A Full 3 Solid 90

1 A Full 3 Solid 120

1 A Full 3 Solid 135

1 A Full 3 Solid 150

1 A Full 3 Solid 165

1 A Full 3 Solid 180

1 A Full 6 Solid 0

1 A Full 6 Solid 30

1 A Full 6 Solid 60

1 A Full 6 Solid 90

1 A Full 6 Solid 120

1 A Full 6 Solid 135

1 A Full 6 Solid 150

1 A Full 6 Solid 165

1 A Full 6 Solid 180

1 A Partial 3 Solid 0

1 A Partial 3 Solid 15

1 A Partial 3 Solid 30

1 A Partial 3 Solid 45

1 A Partial 3 Solid 60

1 A Partial 3 Solid 75

1 A Partial 3 Solid 90

1 A Partial 3 Solid 105

1 A Partial 3 Solid 120

1 A Partial 3 Solid 135

1 A Partial 3 Solid 150

1 A Partial 3 Solid 165

53

1 A Partial 3 Solid 180

1 A Partial 6 Solid 0

1 A Partial 6 Solid 15

1 A Partial 6 Solid 30

1 A Partial 6 Solid 45

1 A Partial 6 Solid 60

1 A Partial 6 Solid 75

1 A Partial 6 Solid 90

1 A Partial 6 Solid 105

1 A Partial 6 Solid 120

1 A Partial 6 Solid 135

1 A Partial 6 Solid 150

1 A Partial 6 Solid 165

1 A Partial 6 Solid 180

2 A Isolated 3 Isolated 180

2 A Isolated 3 Isolated 165

2 A Isolated 3 Isolated 150

2 A Isolated 3 Isolated 135

2 A Isolated 3 Isolated 120

2 A Isolated 4 Isolated 180

2 A Isolated 4 Isolated 165

2 A Isolated 4 Isolated 150

2 A Isolated 4 Isolated 135

2 A Isolated 4 Isolated 105

2 A Isolated 6 Isolated 180

2 A Isolated 6 Isolated 165

2 A Isolated 6 Isolated 150

2 A Isolated 6 Isolated 135

2 A Isolated 6 Isolated 120

2 A Isolated 6 Isolated 180

2 A Isolated 6 Isolated 165

2 A Isolated 6 Isolated 150

2 A Isolated 6 Isolated 135

2 A Isolated 6 Isolated 120

2 A Isolated 3 Isolated 180

2 A Isolated 3 Isolated 165

2 A Isolated 3 Isolated 150

2 A Isolated 3 Isolated 135

2 A Isolated 3 Isolated 105

2 C Isolated 3 Isolated 180

2 C Isolated 3 Isolated 165

2 C Isolated 3 Isolated 150

54

2 C Isolated 3 Isolated 135

2 C Isolated 3 Isolated 120

2 C Isolated 6 Isolated 180

2 C Isolated 6 Isolated 165

2 C Isolated 6 Isolated 150

2 C Isolated 6 Isolated 135

2 C Isolated 6 Isolated 120

2 C Isolated 6 Isolated 180

2 C Isolated 6 Isolated 165

2 C Isolated 6 Isolated 150

2 C Isolated 6 Isolated 135

2 C Isolated 6 Isolated 120

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 180

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 165

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 150

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 135

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 120

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 180

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 165

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 150

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 135

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 120

2 B Partial 3 1 180

2 B Partial 3 1 165

2 B Partial 3 1 150

2 B Partial 3 1 135

2 B Partial 3 1 120

2 B Partial 6 1 180

2 B Partial 6 1 165

2 B Partial 6 1 150

2 B Partial 6 1 135

2 B Partial 6 1 120

2 B Partial 6 1 90

2 B Partial 6 1 0

2 B Full 6 1 180

2 B Full 6 1 165

2 B Full 6 1 150

2 B Full 6 1 135

2 B Full 6 1 120

2 B Full 3 1 180

2 B Full 3 1 165

2 B Full 3 1 150

55

2 B Full 3 1 135

2 B Full 3 1 120

2 B Full 6 1 180

2 B Full 6 1 165

2 B Full 6 1 150

2 B Full 6 1 135

2 B Full 6 1 120

2 B Full 3 1 180

2 B Full 3 1 165

2 B Full 3 1 150

2 B Full 3 1 135

2 B Full 3 1 120

2 B Full 3 1 105

2 B Full 3 1 90

2 B Partial 3 1 180

2 B Partial 3 1 165

2 B Partial 3 1 150

2 B Partial 3 1 135

2 B Partial 3 1 120

2 B Partial 6 1 180

2 B Partial 6 1 165

2 B Partial 6 1 150

2 B Partial 6 1 135

2 B Partial 6 1 120

2 B Partial 6 1 90

2 B Partial 6 1 45

2 B Partial 6 1 0

2 C Partial 6 2 180

2 C Partial 6 2 165

2 C Partial 6 2 150

2 C Partial 6 2 135

2 C Partial 6 2 120

2 C Partial 6 2 90

2 C Partial 6 2 45

2 C Partial 3 2 180

2 C Partial 3 2 165

2 C Partial 3 2 150

2 C Partial 3 2 135

2 C Partial 3 2 120

2 C Partial 3 2 105

2 C Full 6 2 180

2 C Full 6 2 165

56

2 C Full 6 2 150

2 C Full 6 2 135

2 C Full 6 2 120

2 C Full 3 2 180

2 C Full 3 2 165

2 C Full 3 2 150

2 C Full 3 2 135

2 C Full 3 2 120

2 C Full 3 2 105

2 C Full 3 2 90

2 C Full 3 2 45

2 C Full 3 2 0

2 A Full 6 2 180

2 A Full 6 2 165

2 A Full 6 2 150

2 A Full 6 2 135

2 A Full 6 2 120

2 A Full 3 2 180

2 A Full 3 2 165

2 A Full 3 2 150

2 A Full 3 2 135

2 A Full 3 2 120

2 A Full 3 2 90

2 A Partial 6 2 180

2 A Partial 6 2 165

2 A Partial 6 2 150

2 A Partial 6 2 135

2 A Partial 6 2 120

2 A Partial 3 2 180

2 A Partial 3 2 165

2 A Partial 3 2 150

2 A Partial 3 2 135

2 A Partial 3 2 120

2 B Partial 6 3 180

2 B Partial 6 3 165

2 B Partial 6 3 150

2 B Partial 6 3 135

2 B Partial 6 3 120

2 B Partial 3 3 180

2 B Partial 3 3 165

2 B Partial 3 3 150

2 B Partial 3 3 135

57

2 B Partial 3 3 120

2 B Full 6 3 180

2 B Full 6 3 165

2 B Full 6 3 150

2 B Full 6 3 135

2 B Full 6 3 120

2 B Full 3 3 180

2 B Full 3 3 165

2 B Full 3 3 150

2 B Full 3 3 135

2 B Full 3 3 120

2 B Full 3 3 90

2 C Full 6 3 180

2 C Full 6 3 165

2 C Full 6 3 150

2 C Full 6 3 135

2 C Full 6 3 120

2 C Full 6 3 180

2 C Full 3 3 180

2 C Full 3 3 165

2 C Full 3 3 150

2 C Full 3 3 135

2 C Full 3 3 120

2 C Partial 6 3 180

2 C Partial 6 3 165

2 C Partial 6 3 150

2 C Partial 6 3 135

2 C Partial 6 3 120

2 C Partial 6 3 105

2 C Partial 6 3 90

2 C Partial 6 3 45

2 C Partial 6 3 0

2 C Partial 3 3 180

2 C Partial 3 3 165

2 C Partial 3 3 150

2 C Partial 3 3 135

2 C Partial 3 3 120

2 C Partial 3 3 105

2 C Partial 3 3 90

2 C Partial 3 3 45

2 C Partial 3 3 0

2 C Partial 6 3 180

58

2 C Partial 6 3 165

2 C Partial 6 3 150

2 C Partial 6 3 135

2 C Partial 6 3 120

2 C Partial 3 3 180

2 C Partial 3 3 165

2 C Partial 3 3 150

2 C Partial 3 3 135

2 C Partial 3 3 120

2 C Partial 6 Solid 180

2 C Partial 6 Solid 165

2 C Partial 6 Solid 150

2 C Partial 6 Solid 135

2 C Partial 6 Solid 120

2 C Partial 4 Solid 180

2 C Partial 4 Solid 165

2 C Partial 4 Solid 150

2 C Partial 4 Solid 135

2 C Partial 4 Solid 120

2 C Partial 3 Solid 180

2 C Partial 3 Solid 165

2 C Partial 3 Solid 150

2 C Partial 3 Solid 135

2 C Partial 3 Solid 120

2 C Full 6 Solid 180

2 C Full 6 Solid 165

2 C Full 6 Solid 150

2 C Full 6 Solid 135

2 C Full 6 Solid 120

2 C Full 4 Solid 180

2 C Full 4 Solid 165

2 C Full 4 Solid 150

2 C Full 4 Solid 135

2 C Full 4 Solid 120

2 C Full 3 Solid 180

2 C Full 3 Solid 165

2 C Full 3 Solid 150

2 C Full 3 Solid 135

2 C Full 3 Solid 120

2 A Full 6 Solid 180

2 A Full 6 Solid 165

2 A Full 6 Solid 150

59

2 A Full 6 Solid 135

2 A Full 6 Solid 120

2 A Full 4 Solid 180

2 A Full 4 Solid 165

2 A Full 4 Solid 150

2 A Full 4 Solid 135

2 A Full 4 Solid 120

2 A Full 3 Solid 180

2 A Full 3 Solid 165

2 A Full 3 Solid 150

2 A Full 3 Solid 135

2 A Full 3 Solid 120

2 A Partial 6 Solid 180

2 A Partial 6 Solid 165

2 A Partial 6 Solid 150

2 A Partial 6 Solid 135

2 A Partial 6 Solid 120

2 A Partial 4 Solid 180

2 A Partial 4 Solid 165

2 A Partial 4 Solid 150

2 A Partial 4 Solid 135

2 A Partial 4 Solid 120

2 A Partial 3 Solid 180

2 A Partial 3 Solid 165

2 A Partial 3 Solid 150

2 A Partial 3 Solid 135

2 A Partial 3 Solid 120

2 A Isolated 4 Isolated 180

2 A Isolated 4 Isolated 165

2 A Isolated 4 Isolated 150

2 A Isolated 4 Isolated 135

2 A Isolated 4 Isolated 120

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 180

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 165

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 150

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 135

2 C Isolated 4 Isolated 120

2 B Isolated 6 Isolated 180

2 B Isolated 6 Isolated 165

2 B Isolated 6 Isolated 150

2 B Isolated 6 Isolated 135

2 B Isolated 6 Isolated 120

60

2 B Isolated 3 Isolated 180

2 B Isolated 3 Isolated 165

2 B Isolated 3 Isolated 150

2 B Isolated 3 Isolated 135

2 B Isolated 3 Isolated 120

2 B Isolated 6 Isolated 180

2 B Isolated 6 Isolated 165

2 B Isolated 6 Isolated 150

2 B Isolated 6 Isolated 135

2 B Isolated 6 Isolated 120

2 B Isolated 3 Isolated 180

2 B Isolated 3 Isolated 165

2 B Isolated 3 Isolated 150

2 B Isolated 3 Isolated 135

2 B Isolated 3 Isolated 120

61

Appendix C: Results for CMx

FIGURE 39: EFFECT OF SCREEN TYPE ON CMX FOR FULL SCREENS

FIGURE 40: EFFECT OF SCREEN TYPE ON CMX FOR PARTIAL SCREENS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Location A - Full 3'RME

Location A - Full 6'RME

Location B - Full 3'RME

Location B - Full 6'RME

Location C - Full 3'RME

Location C - Full 6'RME

CMx/

CMx

(isol

ated

)

Isolated Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3 Solid

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Location A -Partial 3' RME

Location A -Partial 6' RME

Location B -Partial 3' RME

Location B -Partial 6' RME

Location C -Partial 3' RME

Location C -Partial 6' RME

CMx/

CMx

(isol

ated

)

Isolated Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3 Solid

62

FIGURE 41: EFFECT OF RME LOCATION ON CMX FOR FULL SCREENS

FIGURE 42: EFFECT OF RME LOCATION ON CMX FOR PARTIAL SCREENS

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Isolated Screens

CMx/

CMx

(isol

ated

@ L

ocat

ion

A)

Location A Location B Location C

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Isolated Screens

CMx/

CMx

(isol

ated

@ L

ocat

ion

A)

Location A Location B Location C

63

FIGURE 43: EFFECT OF RME HEIGHT ON CMX FOR FULL SCREENS

FIGURE 44: EFFECT OF RME HEIGHT ON CMX FOR PARTIAL SCREENS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

3' RME - Location A 6' RME - Location A 3' RME - Location B 6' RME - Location B

CMx/

CMx

(isol

ated

)

Isolated Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3 Solid

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

3' RME - Location A 6' RME - Location A 3' RME - Location B 6' RME - Location B

CMx/

CMx

(isol

ated

)

Isolated Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3 Solid

64

FIGURE 45: EFFECT OF SCREEN CONFIGURATION ON CMX AT LOCATION B

FIGURE 46: EFFECT OF SCREEN CONFIGURATION ON CMX AT LOCATION C

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

3' RME - Screen 2 3' RME - Solid 6' RME - Screen 2 6' RME - Solid

CMX/

CMX

(isol

ated

)

Full Screen Partial Screen

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

3' RME - Screen 3 3' RME - Solid 6' RME - Screen 3 6' RME - Solid

CMX/

CMX

(isol

ated

)

Full Screen Partial Screen U Screen