This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
COMPARISON OF WIND LOADS ON MEDIUM-RISE BUILDING ACCORDING TO ASIA-PACIFIC CODES/STANDARDS
Yukio Tamura1, John D. Holmes2, Prem Krishna3, Lu Guo4, Akira Katsumura5 Professor, Wind Engineering Research Center, Tokyo Polytechnic University 1583 Iiyama, Atsugi-city Kanagawa, 243-0297, Japan, email@example.com 2 Doctor, JDH Consulting P.O. Box 269, Mentone Victoria, 3194, Australia, firstname.lastname@example.org 3 Professor, Retired from the Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology Roorkee, India, email@example.com 4 Global COE Researcher, Wind Engineering Research Center, Tokyo Polytechnic University 1583 Iiyama, Atsugi-city Kanagawa, 243-0297, Japan, firstname.lastname@example.org 5 Director, Wind Tunnel Laboratory Division, Wind Engineering Institute Co., Ltd. 395 Kawaguchi, Fuji Kawaguchiko-machi, Yamanashi, 401-0304, Japan, email@example.com
ABSTRACT This paper compares wind load calculations on a medium-rise building using 15 different wind loading codes and standards from the Asia-Pacific Region. The main results of this comparison show various behaviors. The reasons for the differences are discussed. KEYWORDS: MEDIUM-RISE BUILDING, WIND LOADS COMPARISON, CODE/STANDARD
A practical outcome of the International Workshops on Regional Harmonization of Wind Loading and Wind Environmental Specifications in Asia-pacific Economies (APECWW) since 2004 has been a comparison of wind loads on three typical buildings, a low-rise building (Building 1), a medium-rise building (Building 2) and a high-rise building (Building 3), evaluated in accordance with various wind loading codes and standards across the AsiaPacific region. The loading codes and standards of 15 Asia-Pacific economies were compared. This comparison will promote future harmonization of wind loading specifications across the diverse economies of the Asia-Pacific region. This paper compares wind load calculations for a medium-rise building using these 15 different wind loading codes and standards. It also presents the main results of the comparison and discusses the reasons for the differences. 2. Benchmark analysis of a typical medium-rise building
Figure 1 shows a typical medium-rise building. It is an office building assumed to be in a tropical city in a typhoon/cyclone zone. The terrain is a suburban terrain for all directions.
2 Hz (about the 60m direction) and 1. the design wind speeds and turbulence intensity at the top of the building. The maximum base bending moments and base shears were almost three times the minimum values.Design wind speeds at 48m (all-direction): 3-second gust 56 m/s 10-minute mean 36 m/s 1-hour mean 33 m/s . but the flow chart of wind load calculation by AIJ-RLB-2004 is shown in Fig.Sway frequencies is 1. 30m 60m 48m Wind direction Fig. Mullions for glazing panels are spaced at 1. It is air-conditioned with non-opening windows. are set the same for all codes. as shown in Fig. The building is 60m by 30m in plan (rectangular cross-section). The flow charts of wind load calculations for 15 different wind loading codes and standards were not the same.Design wind speeds at 10m (all-direction): 3-second gust 52 m/s 10-minute mean 35 m/s 1-hour mean 31 m/s . The along-wind base bending moment and shear force were required to be calculated for wind directions normal to the 60m wall.Damping ratio is 2% .9m-high parapet. The roof is flat with a 0.The topography is flat (ground slope less than 1 in 20) for more than 5km in all directions.The sway frequencies were 1.2 Hz . the calculation conditions were changed as follows: . However. and the damping ratio. It is assumed to be of reinforced concrete frame construction.5m. the obtained results were significantly dispersed. 3(a) in the following section.Turbulence intensity is 0. and can be considered effectively sealed. 2 as an example. and its average roof height is 48m. Thus.4 Hz. The calculation conditions are originally set as: . The main reason for this significant difference was assumed to be a significant difference in design wind speeds at the top of the building because of the different wind speed profiles. Cladding pressures on the window elements near the corners at the top level were also calculated. 1: Medium-rise building (Building 2) .2 at 48m Under these revised conditions.
The coefficient of variation (COV) is estimated at 22% for both the base shear and the base bending moment. 3(b)). These tables include the mean values of each response parameter and the corresponding coefficients of variation. The calculated values of base shear and base bending moment have no significant correlation with the values of dynamic response factor Cdyn or gust loading factor GD as . The calculation results for along-wind base shears Q and base bending moments M are shown in Table 1 and compared in Fig. In Table 1. 3(b). The coefficients of variation are estimated at 19% and 17% for the base shears Q and the base bending moments M. Singapore (draft standard). the given along-wind dynamic response factorβz seems to be too small. is slightly larger than expected. Indonesia shows the highest values (7. 3(b). Vietnam.477kN and 210MNm) and China shows the lowest values (3. and the modified calculation results show that the base shear and the base bending moment are 5. Considering the given harmonized condition specifying the same design wind speed at the top. The US and the Philippines are in Circle C. Thailand and Taiwan (Circle C’). Results and discussions The results of the calculations under the revised conditions are shown in Tables 1 and 2. These groups closely correspond to several groups related to their origins. and Indonesia compose a higher magnitude group (see Circle A in Fig. 2: Flow chart of wind load calculation by AIJ-RLB-2004 3. the leeward qhCfig seems have a calculation error. 22%. the coefficient of variation. Australia/New Zealand. LZ ˆ ˆ CC Cpe C* pi C* pi ˆ WC qHCC AC krW Fig.282 kN and 99MNm). Japan. the US and China compose a lower magnitude group. The Indonesian values are more than double the Chinese values. India and Hong Kong (Circle A’) and the Philippines compose a medium magnitude group.Cpe CD Cpe1 Cpe2 qH 1/ 2UH 2 GD UH U0KDEH krW U0 WL WT KD WD qHCDGD A E ˆ CC IZ . For Indonesia.957 kN and 169 MNm. For China. 3(a) for the original conditions. Eurocode values are shown for reference. Figure 3(b) shows smaller distributed ranges of Q and M under the revised calculation conditions than Fig. Malaysia. Incidentally. The re-checked results are plotted in Fig. the calculation details of China and Indonesia were rechecked by the authors. Korea and Canada (Circle B). In addition to the results for the 15 Asia-Pacific economies.
and all of these calculations also lie on a regression line. The US and the Philippines (Circle C) have similar dynamic response factors of less than unity. the three clusters are clearly observed as the same as in Fig. 7. 1. Malaysia.3kPa and 3. a lax provision. 4. i. Thailand and Taiwan (Circle C’). almost the same tendency is observed for the base bending moment.8kPa). As shown in Fig. China shows the lowest positive cladding pressure. 8(a). which corresponds to the peak pressure difference between the external surface and the internal surface of a window element. 2. the Philippines and China. Figure 8(b) shows the correlation between the negative cladding pressure. 6. In Figs. Vietnam and Hong Kong. C c .44kPa.e. The group indicated by Circle A consists of Australia/New Zealand. and the positive net peak ˆ force coefficient. three groups indicated by Circles A. P+. and a relatively high negative pressure. and all the calculations lie on a regression line.. such as (2. B and C are clearly identified. compose a cluster having almost the same gust loading factor of around 2. Singapore. 1.61 × 362(m/s)2. CM (2) 2 ˆ q H BH GD q H BH 2Cdyn Table 2 shows the cladding pressures on window elements near the corners at the top level. ˆ q H BHG D q H BHC dyn M M . Japan. where q H =0. for example. (1) and (2). Figure 5 shows that smaller results are obtained for larger IH. because the power-law index of the 3-second-gust profile. which belong to the lower magnitude group. The coefficients of variation for positive cladding pressures and negative cladding pressures are estimated at 22% and 23%. Mean base shear coefficient CQ and mean base bending moment coefficient CM are ˆ derived as Eqs. which belong to the medium magnitude group. The relation between CQ and power-law index α is shown in Fig. Indonesia and Singapore (Circle A) compose a very clear cluster showing the most unfavorable combination of positive and negative pressures. The positive cladding pressures P+ of the first two groups ˆ show a positive correlation with the positive net peak force coefficient. A higher magnitude group including Australia/New Zealand. and the ˆ positive net peak force coefficient. 8(a) and 8(b). (1) Q Q CQ . Malaysia. the mean base shear coefficient CQ has no significant correlation with the power-law index α.44kPa. 6. Vietnam shows the highest positive cladding pressure.e. Incidentally. It should be noted that the results for the 3-second-gust group. which the reason is not clear. Korea and Canada (Circle B). C c +. 2. Australia/New Zealand. the effect of turbulence intensity IH was examined by comparing the base shear and base bending moment obtained from the original conditions with the results obtained from the revised conditions where IH is fixed to 0. the Australia/New Zealand. as shown in Fig. Almost the same tendency was observed for the mean base bending moment coefficient CM. On the other hand. and Indonesia compose a clear cluster indicated by Circle A in Fig. There is no clear correlation between them. 4 with a dynamic response factor of unity. Except for the Euro code. C c +.2. Canada and Thailand. Malaysia and Singapore plots are all closely located.22kPa. the 10minute-mean wind speed profile and the 1-hour-mean wind speed profile are different even for the same terrain category.61 × 562(m/s)2 and q H =0. also have a gust loading factor of around 2. For reference. The group indicated by Circle B consists of Japan. Figure 8(a) shows the correlation between the positive cladding pressure.shown in Fig. Taiwan. Malaysia. Korea. 8(a) for positive cladding pressures. but the highest negative (i. P. lowest magnitude) pressure. . except for China.83kPa. Figure 7 compares the positive cladding pressure P+ and the negative cladding pressure P on window elements near the corners at the top level of the building. In this figure for the negative cladding pressures. the 10-minute-mean group and the 1-hour-mean group cannot be compared. The group indicated by Circle C consists of the US.
975)* 5.149(5.2: 2002 NB NBCC (2005) CH GB50009-2001 HK CP-2004 IN IS875(Part 3)-1987 IA SNI-03-1727 JA AIJ-RLB-2004 KO KBC (2005) MA MS1553-2002 PH NSCP-2001 SI (draft) TA TBC TH EIT-1018-46 US ASCE 7-05 VI TCVN2737-1995 Mean Coefficient of Variation (%) Eurocode EU Table 2: Cladding pressures Country/Region Australia/New Zealand Canada China Hong Kong India Indonesia Japan Korea Malaysia Philippines Singapore Taiwan Thailand United States Vietnam Code/Standard Positive Cladding Pressure P+ (kPa) 2.026 6.70 2.727 5.85 3.67 2.061 5.556 3.32 2. Table 1: Along-wind base shears and base bending moments ( *Re-calculated results) Country/Region Australia/New Zealand Canada China Hong Kong India Indonesia Japan Korea Malaysia Philippines Singapore Taiwan Thailand United States Vietnam Code/Standard Base Shear Q (kN) 5.22 1.282 4.24 2.44 2.738 3.423 5.26 1.67 2.37 2.698 5.87 1.534 5.23 2.957 7.55 2.332 3.25 1.26 1.11 2.95 2.26 3.047)* 22(19)* 6.14 1.86 1.62 2.80 1.737 4.47 AN AS/NZS1170.573 4. It is also recognized that the Korean values tend to show similarity with the Japanese ones for all cases.44 1.41 2.477(5.and the Canada and Thailand plots also band together.108 6.2:2002 NB NBCC (2005) CH GB5009-2001 HK CP-2004 IN IS875(Part 3)-1987 IA SNI-03-1727 JA AIJ-RLB-2004 KO KBC (2005) MA MS1553-2002 PH NSCP-2001 SI (draft) TA TBC TH EIT-1018-46 US ASCE 7-05 VI TCVN2737-1995 Mean Coefficient of Variation (%) Eurocode EU .58 1. suggesting the close relations of their origins.56 1.76 23 2.54 3.53 2.85 22 1.042 Base Bending Moment M (MNm) 150 142 99 116 131 210(169)* 132 134 152 128 163 100 97 117 165 136(133)* 22(17)* 182 AN AS/NZS1170.83 2.69 Negative Cladding Pressure P (kPa) 3.64 2.
1 0.0 B KO NB JA 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 CH JA HK KO JA HK TA CH TA C US CH TA TH C’ 0.5 2.3 Cdyn or GD Turbulence intensity IH Fig. 5: Relation between Q and IH .5 1.0 2.5 0 0.10000 10000 8000 Base shear Q(kN) Base shear Q(kN) 3s-gust 10min-mean 1h-mean JA PH IN SI AN VI IA KO 8000 3s-gust 10min-mean 1h-mean A SI 6000 HK CH 6000 4000 TH 2000 TA 4000 C’ CH 2000 VI EU AN IA KO MA A’PH JANB HK IN B TH TAUSC 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Base bending moment M(MNm) Base bending moment M(MNm) (a) Original calculation conditions (b) Revised calculation conditions Fig. 3: Relation between base shear Q and base bending moment M 8000 7000 8000 7000 KO A Base shear Q(kN) IA EU AN MA PH Base shear Q(kN) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 0. 4: Relation between Q and Cdyn or GD Fig.0 1.2 0.
e.0 0. 6: Relation between and CQ and α Fig.0 A -1.5 1. 8: Relation between cladding pressure and net peak cladding force coefficient 4. the following conclusions can be reached.0 C C PH -3.5 VI NB -2. C c + ˆ Net peak cladding force coefft. some correlation was observed between cladding . C c (a) Positive cladding pressure (b) Negative cladding pressure Fig.5 VI SI MA AN TH JA Positive cladding pressure P+ Negative cladding pressure P 2.0 -4. no significant correlation was observed between the along-wind load effects.cladding pressures 2.0 3. i.8 HK Cladding pressur P- 10min-mean -3.0 US 0.0 4.5 -1.0 -3. CQ 1. However.3 0.5 2.0 B NB TH JA KO TA CH US IN EU HK HK 1.6 0 0.5 US PH TA NB KO CH B EU -2.0 PH C -3.1 0.5 CH US TH EU JA KO TA HK Mean base shear coefft.0 -2.1.0 5.0 Power-law index α Cladding pressure P+ Fig.2 0.6 CH -1.0 2.0 0. For the medium-rise building.0 ˆ Net peak cladding force coefft. base shears and base bending moments.5 -3. 7: Relation between P+ and P.5 3s-gust 0. and dynamic response factors or gust loading factors.0 1.2 JA 1.5 -3.5 1.0 0 0 1.5 B IA A SI AN MA 2.0 6.4 -4.0 NB IN -2.0 0. Conclusions From the comparison of wind load calculations.5 -2.0 -2.4 1h-mean KO TA TH 1.5 A -1.5 AN SI MA -4.
Architectural Institute of Japan . Korean Government Guidelines of Korean Building Code – Structural. “Specification for Building Wind-resistant Design”. “Load Code for the Design of Building Structures”. Fly (2007).6. and R. CP-2004. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. “Loads and Actions Norm for Design”. New York. Building Department. “National Structural Code of the Philippines”. Tokyo. Malaysia (2006). Department of Standards.2:2002. 13-18. TBC. Bureau of Indian Standards. Smaller base shear and base bending moment results are obtained for larger turbulence intensity at the top for most of the codes/standards. Acknowledgments This study was supported by the 21st Century COE Program and the Global COE Program of the Ministry of Education. “Eurocode 1: Action on Structures – Part 1-4: General Actions – Wind Actions”. Eurocode. C. TCVN2737-1995.N. AS/NZS1170. (European Committee for Standardization) (2004).J. MS 1553-2002. 4. “Structural Design Actions. (Wind Load Provisions of Taiwan Building Code). China. 5th edition. KBC (2005).E. Taiwan Architecture and Building Research Institute (2006). Standard National Indonesia.E. Ottawa. The mean values and coefficients of variation of the fifteen codes/standards in the Asia-Pacific region were calculated. Holmes J. Science and Technology in Japan. prEN 1991-1-4. References AIJ-RLB-2004. American Society of Civil Engineering. It was also clearly recognized that some clusters show almost the same or similar behaviors because of the existence of some common source codes/standards. China National Standard. “Code of Practice on Wind Effects – Hong Kong”.D. NRCC (2005). Malaysian Standard. Sports. IS 875(Part 3)-1987. and the coefficients of variation were estimated at around 17% . Brussels. ASCE 7-05. . EIT -1018-46. Mean base shear coefficient and mean base bending moment coefficient have no significant correlation with the power-law index.G.N. “Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures”. GB 50009-2001. Engineering Institute of Thailand (2003). “Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Building and Structures. Distributed ranges of base shears and base bending moments of the revised calculation conditions are smaller than those of the original conditions. Culture.23% for both along-wind overall load effects and cladding pressures. China Architecture and Building Press (2006). Part 2 Wind Actions”. Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines. “Code of Practice on Wind Loading for Building Structure”. “Wind Loading Code for Building Design”. “National Building Code of Canada”. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand.. National Research Council of Canada. Tieu Chuan Viet Nam. C. “Cross-wind Force Spectra”. Journal of Wind and Engineering (ISWE).pressures and net peak cladding force coefficients. NSCP-2001. Part 3 – Wind Loads”. “Recommendations for Loads on Buildings”. SNI-03-1727.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?