545 Station St Box Hill Wind Report

8/12/2019 545 Station St Box Hill Wind Report

1/88

PEDESTRIAN WIND ENVIRONMENT STUDY

545 STATION STREET, BOX HILL

WB213-06F01(REV1)- WE REPORT

8 APRIL 2013

Prepared for

AXF Development (Box Hill Landmark) Pty Ltd

438 Docklands Drive

Docklands, VIC 3008

Attention: Mr Robert Rafaniello


2/88

Wi dt h C lt t Pt Ltd S d (H d Offi ) P d t i Wi d E i t St d

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Date Revision History

Non-

IssuedRevision

IssuedRevision

Prepared By

(initials)

Instructed By

(initials)

Reviewed &Authorised by

(initials)

28/02/2013

Update of previous study(report reference WB213-

05F02(rev0), dated14/01/2013).

- 0 MC / BU TR TR

8/4/2013

Update of previous study(report reference WB213-

06F02(rev0), dated28/02/2013).

- 1 BU TR TR

The work presented in this document was carried out in accordance with the Windtech Consultants Quality Assurance System, which is

based on International Standard ISO 9001.

This document is issued subject to review and authorisation by the Team Leader noted by the initials printed in the last column above.If no initials appear, this document shall be considered as preliminary or draft only and no reliance shall be placed upon it other than

for information to be verified later.

This document is prepared for our Client's particular requirements which are based on a specific brief with limitations as agreed to with

the Client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by a third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third partywithout prior consent provided by Windtech Consultants. The information herein should not be reproduced, presented or reviewedexcept in full. Prior to passing on to a third party, the Client is to fully inform the third party of the specific brief and limitations

associated with the commission.


3/88


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a detailed investigation into the wind environment impact of

the development located at 545 Station Street, Box Hill, as per architectural drawings by the

Buchan Group received April 5, 2013, as well as Revision D of the landscape drawings by

Rush/Wright Associates received March 19, 2013. Testing was performed using Windtechs

boundary layer wind tunnel, which has a 2.6m wide working section and has a fetch length of

14m. Measurements were carried out using a 1:400 detailed scale model of the development.

The effect of nearby buildings and land topography has been accounted for through the use of a

proximity model, which represents a radius of approximately 500m from the development site.

Peak gust and mean wind speeds were measured at selected study point locations within and

around the development. Wind speed velocity coefficients representing the local wind speeds

are derived from the wind tunnel and are combined with the meteorological data for this regionto provide the equivalent full-scale wind speeds. These wind speed measurements are

compared with criteria for pedestrian comfort and safety, based on annual maximum gust wind

speeds and weekly maximum Gust Equivalent Mean (GEM) wind speeds.

The model of the development was tested initially without the effect of any forms of wind

ameliorating devices such as strategic planting, balustrades, screens, canopies, etc, that are no

already shown in the architectural drawings. If the results of the tests indicate adverse wind

conditions, then retests were performed with various forms ameliorative treatments until

satisfactory wind conditions are achieved.

With the inclusion of the latest architectural and proposed landscape drawings, the results of

this study indicate that no treatments are required as the development will satisfy the required

pedestrian comfort criteria for all public and private outdoor spaces.

The following features are found to be important in ensuring that the outdoor trafficable areas

have acceptable wind conditions:

Planting of densely foliating evergreen trees, capable of growing to a height of 4m witha 3m wide canopy, along Station Street and Carrington Road, as outlined in Revision D

of the landscape drawings.

Retain the existing trees along Carrington Road, as outlined in Revision D of thelandscape drawings.

Awnings extending from the eastern and southern Level 1 faade over the GroundLevel.

2m high impermeable screens along the eastern terrace areas of Level 3. An awning extending from the Level 5 faade over the southern terrace of Level 3.

Bifolds along at least one edge of the north-west and south-west corner balconies onLevels 30 to 33.


4/88


CONTENTS

Executive Summary ii

1 Description and Location of the Development 1

2 Wind Climate of the Melbourne Region 3

3 The Wind Tunnel Model 5

4 Boundary Layer Wind Flow Model 9

5 Reference Wind Speeds for the Study 12

6 Test Procedure and Layout of Study Points 13

6.1 Test Procedure 13

6.2 Layout of Study Points for this Study 15

7 Environmental Wind Speed Criteria 23

7.1 Davenports Criteria for Mean Wind Speeds 24

7.2 Lawsons Criteria for Mean Wind Speeds 24

7.3 Melbournes Criteria for Peak Wind Speeds 25

7.4 Comparison of the Various Wind Speed Criteria 25

7.5 Wind Speed Criteria Used for This Study 26

8 Results and Discussion 28

8.1 Ground Level Trafficable Areas 28

8.1.1 The Study Points 28

8.1.2 Applicable Criteria 28

8.1.3 Results and Recommendations 29

8.2 Levels 1, 3 and 5 Communal Terrace Areas 29


8.2.2 Applicable Criteria 30

8.2.3 Results and Recommendations 30

8.3 Critical Balcony Areas 30


8.3.2 Applicable Criteria 308.3.3 Results and Recommendations 30

9 Conclusion 32

References 33

APPENDIX A - Plots of the Wind Tunnel Results

APPENDIX B - Plots of the Wind Tunnel Boundary Layer Profiles


5/88


1 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The development is located within the suburb of Box Hill, to the east of the Melbourne CBD,

and is located at 545 Station Street. To the north of the site is the suburb of Doncaster while to

the south is the suburb of Burwood. To the east and west of the site are the suburbs of

Blackburn and Surrey Hills. Surrounding the site to the immediate north and west is the Centro

Box Hill shopping centre, which also incorporates the Box Hill train station and bus interchange

Further to the north of the site in the Box Hill CBD, with predominantly low-rise industrial and

commercial buildings surround the site in all directions. Further beyond this are predominantly

low-rise residential houses and apartment complexes. An aerial image of the site location is

shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Aerial Image of the Site Location

The proposed development consists of a 7 storey podium consisting primarily of

retail/commercial space which covers the entirety of the site. An L-shaped tower is proposed

atop the podium which runs along the western aspect and to the south-eastern corner of the

site. The main component of the development is 118.3 metres in height above Station Street.


6/88


Pedestrian footpaths are located along Station Street to the east and Carrington Street to the

south. Caf seating areas are currently located on the southern side of Carrington Street.

Communal outdoor terraces areas are located on the eastern and southern aspects of the site

on Ground and Levels 1, 3 and 5 of the development, while private balcony areas are proposed

on all aspects of the tower component of the development.

Figure 2a: Perspective Image of the Site Location

Figure 2b: Perspective Image of the Site Location


7/88


2 WIND CLIMATE OF THE MELBOURNE REGION

The wind climate data used in this study is based on an analysis of 40 years of recorded mean

wind speed data obtained at the meteorological recording station located within Melbourne

Airport, from 1970 to 2009. A plot of the wind speed observation data is presented in Figure 3

below, referenced to a height of 10m above ground in open terrain and converted to hourly

means. This data is also presented in Table 1, which also presents the corresponding 3-second

gust wind speeds. The frequency of occurrence of the regional winds is also shown in Figure 3

for each wind direction. Note that the recurrence intervals examined in this study are for annua

and weekly maximum winds.

The data indicates that the maximum wind speeds for the region are governed primarily by

northerly and westerly winds. Additionally, the most frequent winds for the region occur from

the north, south and west. Note that easterly winds are quite rare for this region.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

Annual maximum mean wind speed (m/s)

Percent of all observations

Percent of all observations greater than 20km/h

Weekly maximum mean wind speed (m/s)

Figure 3: Annual and Weekly Maximum Hourly Mean Wind Speeds, and Frequencies of

Occurrence, for the Melbourne Region (referenced to open terrain at 10m)


8/88


Table 1: Regional Directional Wind Speeds for the Melbourne Region(hourly means and corresponding 3-second gusts,

referenced to 10m height in open terrain)

Reference Wind Speeds (m/s)

Weekly Recurrence Annual RecurrenceWind

DirectionHourlyMean

3-second Gust HourlyMean

3-second Gust

N 12.9 19.7 16.2 24.8

NNE 6.8 10.4 12.0 18.3

NE 0.9 1.4 6.7 10.2

ENE 0.9 1.4 4.1 6.3

E 0.9 1.4 4.5 6.9

ESE 0.9 1.4 5.6 8.5

SE 3.0 4.5 8.9 13.5

SSE 5.9 9.1 9.0 13.7

S 8.2 12.5 10.6 16.1

SSW 6.4 9.8 9.7 14.8

SW 6.8 10.4 10.6 16.2

WSW 7.6 11.5 11.4 17.5

W 8.3 12.7 12.3 18.7

WNW 5.2 7.9 10.1 15.5

NW 4.8 7.4 9.5 14.5

NNW 7.2 11.0 11.3 17.3


9/88


3 THE WIND TUNNEL MODEL

Wind tunnel testing was undertaken to obtain accurate wind speed measurements at selected

critical outdoor locations within and around the development using a 1:400 scale model. The

detailed study model incorporates all of the architectural features on the facades, except for

those elements that have maximum sectional dimensions of less than approximately 1m, which

is appropriate for this type of study. The effect of nearby buildings and significant land

topography effects within a radius of 500m from the centre of the subject development site has

been accounted for through the use of a proximity model. It should be noted that two

surrounds configurations were tested for the subject development. The configurations included:

The existing subject site with existing surrounding buildings. The proposed development with the existing surrounding buildings.

Photographs of the wind tunnel model that have been used for this project are presented in

Figures 4a to 4e below.

Figure 4a: Photograph of the Wind Tunnel Model (view from the south)


10/88


Figure 4b: Photograph of the Wind Tunnel Model (view from the north-east)

Figure 4c: Photograph of the Wind Tunnel Model (view from the north-west)


11/88


Figure 4d: Photograph of the Wind Tunnel Model (close-up view from the south-east)


12/88


Figure 4e: Photograph of the Wind Tunnel Model (close-up view from the north-east)


13/88


4 BOUNDARY LAYER WIND FLOW MODEL

The roughness of the earths surface has the effect of slowing down the prevailing wind near

the ground. This effect is observed up to what is known as the boundary layer height, which

can range between 500m to 3km above the earth surface depending on the roughness of the

surface (ie: oceans, open farmland, dense urban cities, etc). Within this range, the prevailing

wind forms what is known as a boundary wind profile.

Various wind codes and standards classify various types of boundary layer wind flows

depending on the surface roughness. However, it should be noted that the wind profile does no

change instantly due to changes in the terrain roughness. It can take many kilometres (at least

100km) of a constant surface roughness for the boundary layer profile to achieve a state of

equilibrium. Aerial images representing ranges of 5km and 50km from the site is shown in

Figures 5a and 5b respectively on the following pages.

Description of the standard layer profiles for various terrain types are summarised as follows:

Terrain Category 1.0: Extremely flat terrain. Examples include inland water bodiessuch as lakes, dams, rivers, etc.

Terrain Category 1.5: Relatively flat terrain. Examples include oceans and desert. Terrain Category 2.0: Open terrain. Examples include grassy fields and plains and

open farmland (without buildings or trees)

Terrain Category 2.5: Relatively open terrain. Examples include farmland withscattered trees and buildings and very low-density suburban areas.

Terrain Category 3.0: Suburban and forest terrain. Examples include suburban areasof towns and areas with dense vegetation such as forests, bushland, etc.

Terrain Category 3.5: Relatively dense suburban terrain. Examples include centresof small cities, industrial parks, etc.

Terrain Category 4.0: Dense urban terrain. Examples include centres of large citieswith many high-rise towers, and also areas with many closely-spaced mid-rise

buildings.

For this study, the shape of the boundary layer wind flows over standard terrain types is

defined as per ISO4354:2009. These are summarised in Table 2, referenced to the study

reference height of 118.3m above ground. An analysis of the effect of changes in the upwind

terrain roughness was carried out for each of the wind directions studied. This has been

undertaken based on the method given in ESDU-82026:2002 and ESDU-83045:2002.


14/88


Table 2: Terrain & Height Multipliers and Turbulence Intensities,

and the Corresponding Roughness Lengths, for the Standard

ISO4354:2009 Boundary Layer Profiles

Terrain & Height Multipliers

(at 118.3m above ground)Terrain

CategorysTtrk 3600, =

(hourly)

sTtrk 600, = (10-minute)

sTtrk 3, = (3-second)

Turbulence

Intensity

mvI 3.118,

Roughness

Length (m)

rz ,0

1.0 1.06 1.08 1.34 0.091 0.003

1.5 1.01 1.04 1.33 0.106 0.01

2.0 0.96 0.99 1.31 0.123 0.03

2.5 0.89 0.93 1.28 0.148 0.1

3.0 0.82 0.86 1.25 0.178 0.3

3.5 0.72 0.77 1.21 0.224 1

4.0 0.62 0.67 1.15 0.290 3

Figure 5a: Aerial Image showing the Surrounding Terrain

(radius of 5km from the edge of the proximity model, which is coloured red)


15/88


Figure 5b: Aerial Image showing the Surrounding Terrain

(within a radius of 50km from the development site)


16/88


5 REFERENCE WIND SPEEDS FOR THE STUDY

The reference hourly mean wind speeds that are used for this study are calculated for each

wind direction at the reference height of 118.3m above ground, at the upwind edge of the

proximity model (500m upwind of the site). These values are presented in Table 3, and are

derived from the 3-second gust wind speed data obtained at the meteorological station at

Melbourne Airport, from 1970 to 2007 (see Table 1 of this report), which is referenced to a

height of 10m in open terrain, by applying the hourly mean terrain and height multiplier that

were calculated from the analysis of the surrounding terrain types (shown in Table 3 below).

Table 3: Reference Wind Speeds Upwind of the Development Site

(referenced to a height of 118.3m above ground)

Hourly Mean Wind Speed (m/s)

Wind

Direction

Hourly MeanTerrain & Height

Multiplier

sTtrk 3600, = Weekly

RecurrenceAnnual

Recurrence

N 0.83 16.4 20.6

NNE 0.85 8.8 15.4

NE 0.85 1.2 8.7

ENE 0.85 1.2 5.3

E 0.84 1.2 5.8

ESE 0.84 1.2 7.2

SE 0.84 3.8 11.4

SSE 0.85 7.7 11.6

S 0.86 10.7 13.8

SSW 0.85 8.4 12.6

SW 0.86 8.9 13.9

WSW 0.85 9.9 14.9

W 0.83 10.6 15.6

WNW 0.84 6.6 12.9

NW 0.84 6.2 12.2NNW 0.84 9.2 14.5


17/88


6 TEST PROCEDURE AND LAYOUT OF STUDY POINTS

6.1 Test ProcedureTesting was performed using Windtechs boundary layer wind tunnel facility, which has a 2.6m

wide working section and has a fetch length of 14m. Due to the effective blockage-tolerant

design of Windtechs wind tunnel, no correction is required for blockage effects.

The model of the subject development was setup within the wind tunnel, and peak gust and

mean wind speeds were measured in the form of velocity coefficients which are then related to

reference wind speeds for each of the selected locations that were tested for this study. Wind

speed measurements are made in the wind tunnel for sixteen wind directions, at 22.5 degree

increments.

The free-stream and test location air currents were monitored using a set of four Dantec hot-wire probe anemometers. The probe support for each study location was mounted such that the

probe wire was vertical as much as possible, which ensures that the measured wind speeds are

independent of wind direction along the horizontal plane. In addition, care was taken in the

alignment of the probe wire and in avoiding wall-heating effects. This procedure provides

comprehensive information about the wind environment to be expected at each of the study

locations for the various wind directions.

The output from the hot-wire probes was obtained using a National Instruments 12-bit data

acquisition card. The signal was low pass filtered at 32 Hz and results in Peak gust being the

equivalent of the 2 to 3 second gust on which the criteria are based. A sample rate of 1000

samples per second was used, which is more than adequate for he given frequency band.

The mean and the maximum 3-second duration peak gust coefficients were derived from the

following relation:

VgVV . += (6.1)

where: V is the 3-second gust velocity.

V is the mean velocity.

g is the gust factor, which is taken to be 3.5.

V is the standard deviation of the velocity measurement.

The mean free-stream wind speed measured in the wind tunnel for this study was

approximately 11.2m/s. Note that the measurement location for the mean free-stream wind

speed is at a height of 200m at the upwind edge of the proximity model. The resulting velocity

scale range was of approximately 1:0.5 to 1:1.9 for the annual maximum peak wind speeds.Hence the sample length in the model scale of 11 seconds is equivalent to a range of


18/88


approximately 36 to 138 minutes in full-scale for the annual maximum peak wind speeds,

which is suitable for this type of study.

For each of the sixteen wind directions, peak gust and mean wind speed coefficients were

measured using the hot-wire anemometers at selected study point locations at a full-scale

height of approximately 1.5m. The full-scale wind speed at these study location are then

obtained from the measured coefficients for each wind direction using the relationship as

described in Equation 6.2.

=

=

=

m

study

sTtrm

sTtrm

mrefstudyHW

HW

k

kVV

2003600,,3.118

3600,,200

3.118, (6.2)

where: studyV is the full-scale wind velocity at the study point location, in m/s.

mrefV 3.118, is the full-scale reference wind speed at the upwind edge of the

proximity model, referenced to 118.3m above ground (see Table 3).

sTtrmk 3600,,200 = is the hourly mean terrain and height multiplier at 200m

height for the terrain category setup used in the wind tunnel tests.

sTtrmk 3600,,3.118 = is the hourly mean terrain and height multiplier at 118.3m

height (see Table 3).

studyHW is the measurement obtained from the hot-wire anemometer a

the study point location.

mHW200 is the measurement obtained from the hot-wire anemometer a

the free-stream reference location at 200m height upwind of the model in

the wind tunnel.


19/88


6.2 Layout of Study Points for this StudyFor this study a total of 41 study points were selected for detailed analysis. These include the

following:

23 study point locations representing the pedestrian thoroughfares, building entrancesand pick-up/drop-off areas on the Ground Level.

2 study point locations representing the outdoor terraces on Level 1. 4 study point locations representing the outdoor terraces on Level 3. 1 study point location representing the outdoor terrace on Level 5. 5 study point locations representing the private and office balcony areas of Level 9. 3 study point locations representing the private balcony areas of Level 28. 3 study point locations representing the private balcony areas of Level 30.

The locations of the various study points tested for this study are also shown in Figures 6a to

6g on the following pages.

The model of the development was initially tested without the effect of any forms of wind

ameliorating devices such as balustrades, screens, canopies, etc that are not already shown in

the architectural drawings. It should be noted that the effect of vegetation was also not

included in the initial tests. If the results of the tests indicated adverse wind conditions, then

retests were undertaken with ameliorative treatments until satisfactory wind conditions wereachieved.


20/88


Figure 6a: Study Point Locations Ground Level


21/88


Figure 6b: Study Point Locations Level 1


22/88


Figure 6c: Study Point Locations Level 3


23/88


Figure 6d: Study Point Locations Level 5


24/88


Figure 6e: Study Point Locations Level 9


25/88


Figure 6f: Study Point Locations Level 28


26/88


Figure 6g: Study Point Locations Level 30


27/88


7 ENVIRONMENTAL WIND SPEED CRITERIA

The acceptability of wind in any area is dependent upon its use. For example, people walking or

window-shopping will tolerate higher wind speeds than those seated at an outdoor restaurant.

The following table developed by Penwarden (1975) is a modified version of the Beaufort Scale,

and describes the effects of various wind intensities on people. Note that the applicability

column related to wind conditions occurring frequently (approximately once per week on

average). Higher ranges of wind speeds can be tolerated for rarer events.

Table 4: Summary of Wind Effects on People (after Penwarden, 1975)

Type of WindsBeaufort

Number

Mean Wind

Speed (m/s)Effects

Calm, light air 1 0 - 1.5 Calm, no noticeable wind

Light breeze 2 1.6 - 3.3 Wind felt on face

Gentle breeze 3 3.4 - 5.4 Hair is disturbed, Clothing flaps

Moderate breeze 4 5.5 - 7.9 Raises dust, dry soil and loose paper - Hairdisarranged

Fresh breeze 5 8.0 10.7 Force of wind felt on body

Strong breeze 6 10.8 13.8 Umbrellas used with difficulty, Hair blown straight,Difficult to walk steadily, Wind noise on ears

unpleasant.

Near gale 7 13.9 17.1 Inconvenience felt when walking.

Gale 8 17.2 -20.7 Generally impedes progress, Great difficulty withbalance.

Strong gale 9 20.8 24.4 People blown over by gusts.

Lawson (1973) quotes that Beaufort 4 wind speeds (6 to 8m/s means) would be acceptable if it

is not exceeded for more than 4% of the time; and a Beaufort 6 (11 to 14m/s means) as being

unacceptable if it is exceeded more than 2% of the time.


28/88


7.1 Davenports Criteria for Mean Wind SpeedsDavenport (1972) had also come up with a set of criteria in terms of the Beaufort Scale and for

various return periods. The values presented in Table 5 below are based on a frequency of

exceedance of once per week (a probability of exceedance of 5%).

Table 5: Criteria by Davenport (1972)

Classification Human Activities95 Percentile Maximum Mean

(once per week)

Walking Fast Acceptable for walking, mainpublic accessways

10 m/s > u > 7.5 m/s

Strolling, Skating Slow walking, etc. 7.5 m/s > u > 5.5 m/s

Short Exposure Activities Generally acceptable for walking &short duration stationary activities

such as window-shopping,standing or sitting in plazas.

5.5 m/s > u > 3.5 m/s

Long Exposure Activities Generally acceptable for longduration stationary activities such

as in outdoor restaurants &theatres and in parks.

3.5 m/s > u

7.2 Lawsons Criteria for Mean Wind SpeedsLater, Lawson (1975) came up with a set of criteria very similar to those of Davenports. These

are presented in Tables 6 and 7, below.

Table 6: Safety Criteria by Lawson (1975)

Classification Human Activities Annual Maximum Mean

Safety(all weather areas)

Accessible by the general public 15 m/s

Safety(fair weather areas)

Private outdoor areas such asbalconies, terraces etc

20 m/s

Table 7: Comfort Criteria by Lawson (1975)

Classification Human Activities95 Percentile Maximum Mean

(once per week)

Business Walking Objective Walking from A to B 10 m/s > u > 8m/s

Pedestrian Walking Slow walking, etc. 8 m/s > u > 6 m/s

Short Exposure Activities Pedestrian Standing or sitting fora short time

6 m/s > u > 4 m/s

Long Exposure Activities Pedestrian sitting for a longduration

4 m/s > u


29/88


7.3 Melbournes Criteria for Peak Wind SpeedsMelbourne (1978) introduced a set of criteria for the assessment of environmental wind

conditions. These criteria were developed for temperatures in the range from 10oC to 30oC and

for people suitably dressed for outside temperature conditions. These criteria are based on peak

gust wind speeds. Melbournes criteria are outlined in Table 8 below. This set of criteria tends to

be more conservative than criteria suggested by other researchers such as those indicated in

Figure 7.

Table 8: Criteria by Melbourne (1978)

Classification Human Activities Annual Maximum Gust

Limit for safety Completely unacceptable: people likely toget blown over.

u > 23m/s

Marginal Unacceptable as main public accessways. 23 m/s > u > 16 m/s

Comfortable Walking Acceptable for walking, main publicaccessways

16 m/s > u > 13 m/s

Short Exposure Activities Generally acceptable for walking & shortduration stationary activities such as

window-shopping, standing or sitting inplazas.

13 m/s > u > 10 m/s

Long Exposure Activities Generally acceptable for long durationstationary activities such as in outdoorrestaurants & theatres and in parks.

10 m/s > u

7.4 Comparison of the Various Wind Speed CriteriaThe criteria mentioned in Table 7, as well as other criteria, are compared on a probabilistic

basis in Figure 7, below.

Figure 7: Comparison of Various Mean and Gust Wind Environment Criteria, assuming

15% turbulence and a Gust Factor of 1.5 (after Melbourne, 1978)


30/88


However, full-scale observations by Rofail (2007) have shown that the criteria suggested by

Melbourne (1978) generally overstate the wind effects in a typical urban setting. This

discrepancy in the criteria by Melbourne is due to the assumption of a fixed 15% turbulence

intensity for all areas, which in our experience tends to be at the lower end of the range of

turbulence intensities. In the Rofail (2007) study it was found that in an urban setting the

range of the minimumturbulence intensity is typically in the range of 20% to 60%.

7.5 Wind Speed Criteria Used for This StudyFor this study, the measured wind conditions for the various critical outdoor trafficable areas of

the subject development are compared against two sets of criteria. For comfort, the

aforementioned Davenport (1972) criteria are used in conjunction with a weekly maximum

Gust Equivalent Mean (GEM) wind speed (defined below). The safety limit criterion by

Melbourne (1972) of 23m/s for the annual maximum peak wind speeds is also used. Note that

the abovementioned Davenport (1972) criteria is used in conjunction with a Gust Equivalent

Mean (GEM) wind speed (defined below) as this has proven over time, and through field

observations, to be the most reliable indicator of pedestrian comfort. The most reliable source

of data for field observation results are obtained when undertaking remedial wind environment

studies. Note that the safety limit criterion by Melbourne (1978) of 23m/s for annual maximum

peak wind speeds is also applied to all areas. The basic criteria for a range of outdoor activities

are described as follows:

Long Exposure:3.5m/s weekly maximum GEM wind speeds Short Exposure:5.5m/s weekly maximum GEM wind speeds Comfortable Walking:7.5m/s weekly maximum GEM wind speeds Fast Walking:10.0m/s weekly maximum GEM wind speeds Safety Limit:23.0m/s annual maximum gust wind speeds

Note that the criteria above for the weekly maximum GEM wind speeds are based on the

Davenport (1972) criteria, but converted for weekly wind speeds.

Notes:

The GEM is defined as the maximum of the following:o Mean wind speedo Gust wind speed divided by a gust factor of 1.85

The gust wind speed is defined as 3.5 standard deviations from the mean. Long Exposure applies typically to outdoor dining areas, amphitheatres, etc. Short Exposure applies typically to areas where short duration stationary activities are

involved (less than 1 hour). This includes window shopping and drop-off areas.


31/88


Comfortable Walking applies typically to areas used mainly for pedestrianthoroughfares. This also includes private swimming pools and communal areas.

Fast walking applies typically to car parks, laneways, infrequently used publicpedestrian thoroughfares and parks, balconies, private terraces etc.

In all areas, the wind conditions are also checked against the safety limit.


32/88


8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For this study, a total of 41 study points were selected for detailed analysis. The locations o

the various study points tested for this study are shown in Figures 6a to 6g. It should be noted

that the initial tests of the development were undertaken without the effect of any form of wind

ameliorating devices such as balustrades or screens not shown in the architectural design. The

initial tests also ignored the effect of existing and/or proposed vegetation. For areas not

achieving appropriate wind conditions, retests were undertaken involving various forms o

ameliorative treatments that have been described in detail in the following section to achieve

satisfactory wind conditions and are shown in marked up figures.

It should be noted that two surrounds configurations were tested for the subject development.

The configurations include:

The existing subject site with existing surrounding buildings. The proposed development with the existing surrounding buildings.

Note that the results of the study are based on the weekly maximum GEM wind speed criteria

and the annual maximum peak wind speed criteria, as outlined in Section 7.5 of this report.

Plots of results of the local directional wind speeds for the various test locations, as derived

from the wind tunnel tests, are presented in Appendix A (attached to this report).

8.1 Ground Level Trafficable Areas8.1.1 The Study Points

Study Points 1 to 23 are used to monitor the Ground Level wind conditions along the various

trafficable areas for pedestrians within and around the site. These areas include pedestrian

thoroughfares, building entrances, as well as the pick-up/drop-off areas around the site. The

locations of these study points are also shown in Figure 6a.

8.1.2 Applicable CriteriaThe majority of Ground Level areas of the site will be used as pedestrian areas, thus the

appropriate wind comfort criterion for this type of use is the comfortable walking criterion of

7.5m/s for the weekly maximum GEM wind speeds. However, the areas represented by Study

Points 4, 5, 10 and 23 may represent outdoor seating areas and hence the appropriate wind

condition for these areas is the short exposure criterion of 5.5m/s for the weekly maximum

GEM wind speeds. If the existing wind conditions around the site already exceed the

recommended comfortable walking criterion of 7.5m/s for the weekly maximum GEM wind

speeds, then wind conditions for this area with the inclusion of the proposed development

should not result in an exceedence of the existing wind speeds. Note that the safety limit

criterion of 23m/s for the annual maximum peak wind speeds should also be satisfied for all

Ground Level areas.


33/88


8.1.3 Results and RecommendationsThe results of this indicate that Study Points 6 and 8 are adversely affected by winds from the

northerly, and westerly to southerly directions that exceed the comfortable walking criterion of

7.5m/s for the weekly maximum GEM wind speeds and the safety criterion of 23m/s for the

annual maximum peak wind speeds at these locations. Study Point 9 is exposed to winds from

the west-south-west to south directions that exceed the comfortable walking criterion of 7.5m/s

for the weekly maximum GEM wind speeds. In addition, Study Point 5 is exposed to winds from

the northerly direction, while Study Point 4 is exposed to winds from the southerly direction

that both exceed the short exposure criterion of 5.5m/s for the weekly maximum GEM wind

speeds. Study Point 23 is exposed to winds from the south-westerly direction that exceed the

short exposure criterion of 5.5m/s for the weekly maximum GEM wind speeds. Study Points 18

and 20 also exceed the comfortable walking criterion due to northerly winds. To ameliorate the

adverse winds at these locations, retests were undertaken with the inclusion of the existing

trees along Carrington Road, as well as the inclusion of 4m high densely foliating trees along

the southern and eastern edge of the site, as shown in Figure 8a. The results of the retests

show that with the inclusion of these densely foliating trees, the wind conditions are within the

appropriate criteria. With the inclusion of the proposed planting scheme, all Study Points

adjacent to those mentioned are also expected to satisfy the appropriate criteria.

The results of this study indicate that Study Point 16 is exposed to adverse winds from the

northerly direction, which exceeds the recommended comfortable walking criteria of 7.5m/s for

this location. However, when compared against wind tunnel results obtained for the existing

wind conditions, without the proposed development, it is evident that this northerly wind

effects is pre-existing and not a result of the subject development. The inclusion of the subject

development results in a reduction to the existing wind conditions.

Study Point 14, which represents the trafficable area along the western boundary of the site, is

adversely affected by the northerly winds. These wind conditions will marginally exceed the

comfortable walking criterion due to the northerly direction only. As this wind condition is

localised to one direction, and the area will not be used as a pedestrian thoroughfare, no

recommendations have been made to improve the wind conditions in this area.

All other Study Points are within the appropriate criteria and satisfy the safety limit criterion.

With the inclusion of the proposed planting scheme, all areas will be suitable for their intended

uses.

8.2 Levels 1, 3 and 5 Communal Terrace Areas8.2.1 The Study Points

Study Points 24 to 30 are used to monitor the wind conditions on the various terraces located

on Levels 1, 3 and 5. The locations of these study points are also shown in Figures 6b to 6d.


34/88


35/88


36/88


9 CONCLUSION

A detailed investigation has been undertaken into the wind environment impact of the

development located at 545 Station Street, Box Hill, as per architectural drawings by the

Buchan Group received April 5, 2013, as well as Revision D of the landscape drawings by

Rush/Wright Associates received March 19, 2013.

With the inclusion of the latest architectural and proposed landscape drawings, the results of

this study indicate that no treatments are required as the development will satisfy the required

pedestrian comfort criteria for all public and private outdoor spaces.

The following features are found to be important in ensuring that the outdoor trafficable areas

have acceptable wind conditions:

Planting of densely foliating evergreen trees, capable of growing to a height of 4m witha 3m wide canopy, along Station Street and Carrington Road, as outlined in Revision D

of the landscape drawings.

Retain the existing trees along Carrington Road, as outlined in Revision D of thelandscape drawings.

Awnings extending from the eastern and southern Level 1 faade over the GroundLevel.

2m high impermeable screens along the eastern terrace areas of Level 3. An awning extending from the Level 5 faade over the southern terrace of Level 3. Bifolds along at least one edge of the north-west and south-west corner balconies on

Levels 30 to 33.


37/88


REFERENCES

Aynsley, R.M., Melbourne, W., Vickery, B.J., 1977, Architectural Aerodynamics, Applied

Science Publishers.

Davenport, A.G., 1972, An approach to human comfort criteria for environmental conditions,

Colloquium on Building Climatology, Stockholm.

Deaves, D. M. and Harris, R. I. 1978, A mathematical model of the structure of strong winds.

Construction Industry and Research Association (U.K), Report 76

International Organisation for Standardisation, ISO4354:2009(E), Wind Actions on

Structures.

Engineering Science Data Unit, 1982, London ESDU82026, with Amendments A to E (issued in

2002).

Engineering Science Data Unit, 1983, London ESDU83045, with Amendments A to C (issued in

2002).

Lawson, T.V., 1973, The wind environment of buildings: a logical approach to the

establishment of criteria, Bristol University, Department of Aeronautical Engineering.

Lawson, T.V., 1975, The determination of the wind environment of a building complex before

construction, Bristol University, Department of Aeronautical Engineering.

Melbourne, W.H., 1978, "Criteria for Environmental Wind Conditions", Journal of Wind

Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol.3, pp.241-249.

Melbourne, W.H., 1978, "Wind Environment Studies in Australia", Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol.3, pp.201-214.

Penwarden, A.D., and Wise A.F.E., 1975, "Wind Environment Around Buildings", Building

Research Establishment Report, London.

Ratcliff, M.A. and Peterka, J.A., 1990, Comparison of Pedestrian Wind Acceptability Criteria",

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol.36, pp.791-800.

Rofail, A.W., 2007, Comparison of Wind Environment Criteria against Field Observations, 12th

International Conference of Wind Engineering (Volume 2), Cairns, Australia.


38/88


APPENDIX A -PLOTS OF THE WIND TUNNEL RESULTS


39/88

Annual Maximum Gust Wind Speeds (m/s)

Weekly Maximum Gust Equivalent Mean Wind Speeds (m/s)

Measured Wind Speeds at Point 01

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNWLong Exposure Criterion (3.5m/s)

Short Exposure Criterion (5.5m/s)

Comfortable Walking Criterion (7.5m/s)

Fast Walking Criterion (10m/s)

With the development as proposed, withoutthe inclusion of vegetation.

Retest 1 (Not Required)




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

Limit of Safety Criterion (23m/s)

With the development as proposed, without

the inclusion of vegetation.






40/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW











0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNWLimit of Safety Criterion (23m/s)








41/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW Long Exposure Criterion (3.5m/s)









0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW








42/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

Long Exposure Criterion (3.5m/s)






Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW Limit of Safety Criterion (23m/s)



Existing case





43/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW






Proposed tree planting scheme




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW








44/88




0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW











0

5

10

15

20

25

30

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW









45/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW







Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW



Existing case





46/88




0

2

4

6

8

10

12N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW











0

5

10

15

20

25

30

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW








47/88




0

2

4

6

8

10

12

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

SW

W

NW

NW






Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

SW

W

NW

NW



Existing case





48/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW





With the development as p roposed, withoutthe inclusion of vegetation.

Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW



Existing case




`


49/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

SW

W

WNW

NW






Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW



Existing case





50/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

SW

W

NW

NW

NNW






Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW



Existing case





51/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW






Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW



Existing case





52/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

SW

W

NW

NW

NNW






Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

SW

NW

NW



Existing case





53/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW






Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW



Existing case





54/88




0

2

4

6

8

10

12

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW






Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW



Existing case





55/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW






Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW



Existing case





56/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW






Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW



Existing case





57/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW







Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW




Existing case





58/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW







Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW




Existing case





59/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW






Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW



Existing case





60/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW







Existing case




0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW



Existing case





61/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW










0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW









62/88


63/88


64/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW










0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW








65/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW











0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW








66/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW











0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW








67/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW











0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW









68/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW











0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW








69/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW










0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW









70/88


71/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW











0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW








72/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW











0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW









73/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW











0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW









74/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW










0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW









75/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW











0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW









76/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW











0

5

10

15

20

25

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW








77/88




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW











0

5

10

15

2

Documents

545 Station St Box Hill Wind Report