Abstract ISO standard 15927-3 establishes two calculation methods to characterise wind-driven rain exposure on building facades, with different approximations according to the available climatic data: (i) a reference method, using hourly wind and rain data, and (ii) an alternative method using average wind records and the present weather code for rain in half-day intervals when hourly data are not available. However, the equivalence between the two methods was only validated in three British cities with similar environmental conditions (London, Manchester, and Edinburgh), and for only four facade orientations. In addition, the description of the second method also admits different interpretations that can influence its results. This study re-examines the real equivalence between the two methods, comparing their results in multiple facade orientations of 12 Spanish locations subjected to varied amounts of wind-driven rain exposure. The analysis shows that the reliability of the method based on non-hourly data varies significantly according to the methodological interpretation applied, making it advisable to review its current description. Finally, an improvement is proposed that reinforces the equivalence and reliability of the alternative method with respect to the reference method, regardless of the climate of the analysed location.

中文翻译：

---

ISO 15927-3 建立的确定风驱动雨暴露的方法之间的等效性：再分析和改进建议

摘要 ISO 15927-3 标准建立了两种计算方法来表征建筑物立面上的风驱动雨暴露，根据可用的气候数据使用不同的近似值：(i) 参考方法，使用每小时风雨数据，以及 (ii)当每小时数据不可用时，使用平均风记录和当前天气代码的替代方法，以半天为间隔进行降雨。然而，这两种方法之间的等价性仅在具有相似环境条件的三个英国城市（伦敦、曼彻斯特和爱丁堡）中得到验证，并且仅适用于四个立面方向。此外，对第二种方法的描述也承认可能影响其结果的不同解释。本研究重新审视了两种方法之间的真正等价性，比较他们在 12 个西班牙地点的多个立面方向上的结果，这些地点受到不同程度的风驱动雨暴露。分析表明，基于非小时数据的方法的可靠性根据所应用的方法学解释而显着变化，因此建议审查其当前描述。最后，提出了一种改进，无论分析位置的气候如何，都可以增强替代方法相对于参考方法的等效性和可靠性。