See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264554542

Loading Pattern and Spatial Distribution of

Dynamic Wind Load and Comparison of Wind
and Earthquake Effects along the Height of Tall
Buildings

Article July 2011

READS

304

1 author:

Hamed Nikbakht
Pennsylvania State University
2 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Hamed Nikbakht
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 15 August 2016
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 1607
Leuven, Belgium, 4-6 July 2011
G. De Roeck, G. Degrande, G. Lombaert, G. Muller (eds.)
ISBN 978-90-760-1931-4

Loading Pattern and Spatial Distribution of Dynamic Wind Load and Comparison of
Wind and Earthquake Effects along the Height of Tall Buildings
Ali Bakhshi1, Hamed Nikbakht1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Email: bakhshi@sharif.edu, hamednikbakht1983@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study is that with respect to the procedure and distribution of dynamic wind and earthquake load,
to investigate the height beyond which the wind load would be dominant over the seismic loading condition. For the current
study, 5 tall steel frames buildings with various lateral resisting system that are almost symmetrical in plan are investigated via
three-Dimensional models. In this study, the effect of dynamic time history wind load is considered and when its applied along
the height of tall buildings, the fluctuating wind speed is simulated as an ergodic multivariate stochastic process, and the Fast
Fourier Transform is needed to estimate the fluctuating wind speed components acting on the structure. The longitudinal wind
load is considered in the following analysis neglecting the transverse and vertical wind load components. For two basic wind
speed (47 m/s and 76 m/s) according to ASCE7-05, mean wind speed along the height was calculated and with accumulating
this component with fluctuation wind speed component, wind speed along the height at each level can be computed. For the
nonlinear dynamic analysis, 16 accelerograms are used that including 8 rock soil types and 8 deep soil types. Finally, One group
of analyses are performed by simulating fluctuation wind speed under dynamic time history wind load and its counterpart,
nonlinear dynamic earthquake load due to excitation from the ground motion earthquake accelerograms. This study determined
that the structure with lower height or number of stories in which parameters dominant in seismic loading and with increasing in
height of buildings, rate of influence of wind load along the height in which parameters is larger than seismic loading and the
results of wind and earthquake characteristics was compared in form of power spectral density (PSD).

KEY WORDS: Dynamic time history wind load; seismic loading; tall building; nonlinear dynamic analysis.

1 INTRODUCTION
Wind load is one of the important design loads for civil
engineering structures. For long span bridges, tall buildings
and high towers or mast structures, wind load may be taken as
a critical loading, and complicated dynamic wind load effects
control the structural design of the structure. Therefore
knowledge of the dynamic characteristics of an important
structure under wind loading becomes a requirement in
engineering design and in academic study. In the ongoing
research project on tall buildings, the study of wind-induced
demands is categorized as: along-wind and crosswind
responses. These demands are caused by different
mechanisms. Moving along the wind-induced is due to the
effects of turbulence impact while the perpendicular
component is related to the effects of windstorm. Along-wind
response may be of special importance with respect to the
comfort criteria. The loading condition on skyscrapers may
differ from low-rise buildings due to the number of stories, on
structures due to the high number of stories, and the
importance of dynamic effects of current loading (wind). On
the other hand the effect of wind load on tall structures not
only distributed over the wider surface but also it has higher
intensity. Furthermore, in high risk seismic zone the seismic
performance of structures are considered as the primary
importance which influence other hand in seismic zones, may
be the effect of impact forces resulting from earth movement
greater than the forces caused by wind loads and
consequently, Seismic loading determines form and final
design of the structure (with this assumption that with respect
to the all international codes and standards, wind and
earthquake loads never simultaneously apply on the structure).
On the basis of the above discussions, the aim of this study is
that with respect to the procedure and distribution of dynamic
wind and earthquake load, to investigate the height beyond
which the wind load would be dominant over the seismic
loading condition. For the current study, 5 tall steel frame
buildings with various lateral resisting system such as
Moment frame system, shear wall system and outrigger
system. In this study, the effect of dynamic time history wind
load is considered and when its applied along the height of
tall buildings, the fluctuating wind speed is simulated as an
ergodic multivariate stochastic process, and the Fast Fourier
Transform is needed to estimate the fluctuating wind speed
components acting on the structure.
For the nonlinear dynamic analysis, 16 accelerograms are
used that including 8 rock soil types and 8 Deep soil types.
Finally, One group of analyses are performed by simulating
fluctuation wind speed under dynamic time history wind load
and its counterpart, nonlinear dynamic earthquake load due to
excitation from the ground motion earthquake accelerograms.
This study has focused on Three prominent structural
demands such as the peak inter story drift (which is a failure
index), maximum story displacement and peak story shear
was evaluated and the results of wind and earthquake
characteristics was compared in form of power spectral
density (PSD).
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011
2 THE WIND LOAD MODEL IN THE TIME DOMAIN
The longitudinal wind load is considered in the following
analysis neglecting the transverse and vertical wind load
components. The wind speed at level z above the
ground, v ( z , t ) , can be written as
v( z=
, t ) v ( z ) + v( z , t )
Where v ( z , t ) and v( z , t ) denote the average wind speed and
fluctuating wind speed, respectively. The mean wind speed at
a different level, v ( z ) , may be calculated according to the
ASCE7-05 (power law) [1,2]
z
v ( z) = b () v (2)
10
Where b and are constants that are defined regarding to
exposure categories and v is the basic wind speed (m/s) and in
which z and v ( z ) are the arbitrary height and its
corresponding average wind speed.
Since the wind speed is low, the aeroelastic forces arising
out of the interaction between air and the structure are so
small that they can be neglected. The aerodynamic forces due
to wind turbulence are expressed as follows with no lifting
effect in the present case of vertical cantilever structure. The
fluctuating wind speed F ( z , t ) on the structure at level z can
be written as [3]
1 of 3700 kg/cm2. The compressive strength of concrete
F ( z, t ) = s ( z ) A( z )v 2 ( z , t )
2 Institute of Steel Construction Specifications were used to
Where is the density of air, A( z ) is the orthogonal exposed
wind area at level z and s ( z ) is structural shape factor (or
drag coefficient) of the structure at level z.
Substituting Eqs. (1) and (2) into (3) yields
F ( z , t ) = Cm ( z )v 2 + C f 1 ( z )vv( z , t )
+C f 2 ( z )v 2 ( z , t )
1 z
Where Cm ( z ) = s ( z ) A( z )b 2 ( ) 2 is the coefficient of
2 10
mean wind load, which depends on the vertical height of the
selected level (reference height), C f 1 ( z ) = s ( z ) A( z )b
z 1
( ) and C f 2 ( z ) = s ( z ) A( z ) are similarly defined
10 2
coefficients for the fluctuating wind load. Benfratello et al.[4],
after analyzing the stochastic response of a SDOF structure
subject to wind action, concluded that neglecting the quadratic
pressure term of the fluctuating wind speed could not lead to
accurate results. The fluctuating wind speed is simulated as an
ergodic multivariate stochastic process, and the fast Fourier
transform is needed to estimate the fluctuating wind speed
components acting on the structure [5]. When the mean wind
speed v ( z ) corresponding to each level z and the time history
1608
of the fluctuating wind speed at all levels, v ( z , t ) , are
obtained, the wind load in the structure can be computed.
3 DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURAL MODELS IN THIS
STUDY
In this study, five structural models are used for specifying
(1)
the trend of this research that defines as follows:
(1) A 20-storey building in the form of steel moment
resisting frame accompanied with RC shear wall (70
m height).
(2) A 20-storey building in the form of steel moment
resisting frame accompanied with concentrically
steel braced frames (X-braces) (70 m height).
(3) A 30-storey building in the form of steel moment
resisting frame accompanied with RC shear wall
(105 m height).
(4) A 30-storey building in the form of steel moment
resisting frame accompanied with concentrically
steel braced frames (X-braces) (105 m height).
(5) A 40-story building in the form of steel complex dual
system of rigid and braced frames in combination
with outriggers and belt trusses and the brace types
are buckling restrained braces (BRB) (151.2 m
height).
All of tall buildings have a residential application. The
structural system of the floor is composite of reinforced
concrete slabs and steel secondary beams. The steel material
used in the sections of the structural members is of ST37 type
with yielding strength of 2400 kg/cm2 and ultimate strength
(3) material, f'c, used in the shear walls is 300 kg/cm2. American
design steel members and shear wall respectively [6, 7]. In
order to calculate earthquake load, the spectrum dynamic
method was used based on reference Standard No. 2800-05
[8].
The plans of the structures, lateral load resisting frames, the
direction of the girders, secondary beams and the location of
shear walls and bracings are shown in Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and
(4) 6.
Figure 1. The structural plan of 20 and 30-storey buildings
with steel braced system
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 1609

Figure 2. The structural plan of 20 and 30-storey buildings

with shear wall system Figure 5. Mid-Height and Top Stories Configuration and
Structural System of 40-storey building (Including Outrigger)

Figure 3. Base Stories Configuration and Structural System of

40-storey building

Figure 6. Lateral Load Resisting Frames of 40-storey

building

In summary, the first 10 modes of 3 structures are tabulated in

Table 1.
Table 1. Modal analysis results
Periods (sec)
Mode 40-storey 30st(X-brace) 20st(X-brace)
1 4.383 2.937 2.23
2 3.773 2.828 2.067
3 2.269 1.664 1.634
4 1.525 0.923 0.651
5 1.322 0.902 0.621
Figure 4. Typical Stories Configuration and Structural System
6 0.856 0.535 0.493
of 40-storey building
7 0.755 0.487 0.326
8 0.677 0.477 0.319
9 0.568 0.322 0.251
10 0.54 0.317 0.211
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011
4 SEISMIC LOAD AND NONLINEAR ANALYSIS
In order to assess the seismic behavior of selected buildings,
we have conducted a series of nonlinear time history analyses
to compare with time history wind load. The designed
structures have been used by importing into PERFORM-3D
[9] software to create a nonlinear model. Buildings were
checked for the following performance level: collapse
prevention level using a three dimensional nonlinear step-by-
step time history analysis with the program Perform 3D (CSI,
2007).
4.1 Collapse prevention step-by-step nonlinear analysis
16 ground motions including 8 rock soil types and 8 Deep soil
types modified to match the response spectrum according to
Standard No. 2800-05, were used to represent the maximum
considered event (MCE) with a mean recurrence interval of
2475 years (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years). With
this assumption these accelerogroms are selected that distance
of all of 16 accelerograms from fault focus is more than 20
km and all of them are applied to the structures separately in x
direction.
5 models were built in Perform 3D (CSI, 2007) to represent
the lateral system of the building. The seismic mass
equivalent to the dead load and its associated rotational
moment of inertia is assigned at levels above the ground floor.
The mass associated to the ground level and below is ignored.
The diaphragms above-ground level are modelled as rigid
diaphragms by slaving the horizontal translation degrees of
freedom. For 40-storey building, Ground motions are input at
the top of the mat foundation. The foundation is idealized as
rigid by providing lateral and vertical supports at the top of
the foundation. The lateral resistance of the soil surrounding
the subterranean walls is neglected.
P-delta effects are considered in the model by the inclusion of
a P-delta column at the centre of mass of the building with
an axial load equivalent to the dead load plus the expected live
load. This column is pinned at both ends on each level with its
nodes slaved to the diaphragm defined at each floor.
Figure 7 shows a PERFORM frame compound component for
the chord rotation model. The key parts of this model are the
FEMA beam components. These are finite length components
with nonlinear properties. The model has two of these
components for cases where the strengths are different at the
two ends of element. The PERFORM converts this model to
the model shown in Figure 7. Each FEMA beam component is
actually two components, namely a plastic hinge and an
elastic segment.
Figure 7. Basic components for chord rotation model (a) and
Beam component with plastic hinges (b)
4.2 Damping
Rayleigh damping is used to run the time history nonlinear
analyses and during applying time history wind load. To
define the damping curve, the damping is set at 25% of
critical damping at a period of 02 T1 and at a period of 09
1610
T1, T1 being the fundamental period of the structure. The
and values are automatically calculated by Perform 3D
(CSI, 2007). Figure 8 shows the resulting damping curve.
Figure 8. Rayleigh damping as defined in Perform 3D
5 SIMULATION OF THE FLUCTUATING WIND
LOAD
The highest frequency of interest of the fluctuating wind
component is taken as 4 rad/s and the size of fast Fourier
transform is 1024. The time step of data is 0.78 s. The
roughness length z0 is taken as 0.7 m, and the exponential
decay coefficient Cz is taken as 10 [3] for calculating the wind
power spectrum; for the coherence function between the wind
speeds at two different levels. The vertical wind profile is
assumed to follow the ASCE7-05. The basic wind speed
according to the ASCE7-05 was selected 47 and 76 m/s, and
the angle between the wind direction and the positive
direction of the x-axis is assumed to be 0 degrees. The
quantity of basic wind speed deliberately was selected high
quantity for comparison with nonlinear analysis due to the
selected ground motions were used to represent the MCE. The
density of air is taken as 1.226 kg/m3 in the wind load
calculation. The fluctuating wind speed is simulated as an
ergodic multivariate stochastic process. The mentioned input
information and other vital information are tabulated in table
2.
Table 2. Time history wind design parameters
Basic wind speed (V) 47 and 76 m/s
Time step of data 0.78
Occupancy category II
Surface roughness B
Exposure type B
Enclosure classification Enclosed
Cut off frequency (Wu) 4 rad/s
Roughness length (Z0) 0.7
Exponential decay coefficient (Cz) 10
Von Karman constant (K) 0.4
Structural shape factor (s) 1.3
Density of air 1.226 kg/m3
These above information are input data for the program
written for simulation of ergodic multivariate stochastic
process by using the spectral representation method were
written by Shinozuka and Deodatis [10].
In this study, to evaluate the role of duration of time history
wind load in tall buildings, 60 sec and 3600 sec intervals are
selected for assessing this goal and sequently time history
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 1611

wind load in form of these two duration is applied to the 20 story-shear wall System
structures.
20
The time history along-wind load will be imposed at the Deep Soil(Mean)
18
location of perimeter beam-column joints (major joint of each
16 Rock Soil(Mean)
floor) while considering the area that assume for those joints
(i.e., it worth nothing to mention that contribution of corner 14
Wind Load-Vb=76m-
joints shall be half of the interior ones). According to above 12 s-t=3600
description, method of applying dynamic along-wind load in Mean+ (Deep soil)

Story
10
each story in form of time history is shown in figure 8.
8 Mean+ (Rock soil)
6
wind load-Vb=76m-s-
4 t=60
2 wind load-Vb=47m-s-
t=3600
0
wind load-Vb=47m-s-
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 t=60
Drift(Ratio)

Figure 10. Peak story drifts for 20-story (shear wall system)

30 story-Bracing system
30
Deep soil(Mean)

25 Rock Soil(Mean)

20 Mean+ (Deep soil)

Figure 8. Procedure of applying time history along-wind load
Mean+ (rock soil)
Story

along the height on exterior side of tall building 15

wind load-Vb=47m-
6 ANALYSIS RESULTS 10 s-t=3600
Finally, One group of analyses are performed by simulating wind load-Vb=47m-
s-t=60
fluctuation wind speed under dynamic time history wind load 5
wind load-Vb=76m-
and its counterpart, nonlinear dynamic earthquake load due to s-t=3600
excitation from the ground motion earthquake accelerograms. 0 wind load-Vb=76m-
This study has focused on Three prominent structural 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 s-t=60
demands such as the peak inter story drift (which is a failure Drift(ratio)
index), maximum story displacement and peak story shear Figure 11. Peak story drifts for 30-story (bracing system)
was evaluated and the results of wind.
Figures 923 represent the behaviour of buildings under time 30 story-Shear wall system
history along-wind load derived from two basic wind speeds
(47 m/s and 76 m/s) for duration of 60 sec and 3600 sec. Also, 30
Deep soil(Mean)
these figures show the behaviour of buildings under the MCE
records in form of theirs Averages (Mean) and mean plus 25 Rock soil(Mean)
standard deviation (Mean+) separately for 8 deep soil types
20 Wind Load-V=76m-
and 8 rock soil types. s-t=3600
Mean+ (Deep soil)
Story

15
20story-Bracing system Rock Soil(Mean)
20
Mean+ (Rock Soil)
Deep Soil(Mean) 10
18
wind load-Vb=76m-
16 Mean+ (Deep soil) 5 s-t=60
14 wind load-Vb=47m-
12 Mean+ (Rock soil) s-t=3600
0
Story

10 wind load-Vb=47m-
wind load-Vb=47m- 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
8 s-t=3600 s-t=60
6 wind load-Vb=47m- Drift(ratio)
4 s-t=60
2
wind load-Vb=76m- Figure 12. Peak story drifts for 30-story (shear wall system)
s-t=3600
0
wind load-Vb=76m-
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 s-t=60 According to figures, In 20-story and 30-story buildings,
Drift(ratio) peak of story drift and displacements along the height due to
deep soil types are more than ones in rock soil types and in
Figure 9. Peak story drifts for 20-story (bracing system) peak story shear along the height, thats vice versa. With
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 1612

40 story 30 story-Bracing system

35 Deep soil(Mean) 30 Deep Soil(Mean)

30
Rock soil(Mean) 25 Rock Soil(Mean)
25
wind load- Mean+ (Deep soil)
Vb=47m-s-t=3600 20
20
wind load- Mean+ (Rock soil)
Story

Story
15 Vb=47m-s-t=60 15
wind load- wind load-Vb=47m-
10 Vb=76m-s-t=3600 s-t=3600
10
Deep soil(Mean+) wind load-Vb=47m-
5
s-t=60
Rock soil(Mean+) 5
0 wind load-Vb=76m-
s-t=3600
-5 wind load-
0 wind load-Vb=76m-
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.018 0.021 Vb=76m-s-t=60
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 s-t=60
Drift(ratio)
Displacement(m)

Figure 13. Peak story drifts for 40-story Figure 16. Peak displacements for 30-story (bracing system)

20 story-Bracing system 30 story-shear wall system

Deep Soil(Mean)
20 Deep soil(Mean)
30
18 Rock Soil(Mean)
Rock soil(Mean)
16 25
Mean+ (Deep soil)
14 Wind Load-V=76m-
20 s-t=3600
12 Mean+ (Rock soil)
Mean+ (Deep soil)
Story

story

10
15
wind load-Vb=47m-
8 Mean+ (Rock soil)
s-t=3600
6 10
wind load-Vb=47m- wind load-Vb=76m-
4 s-t=60 s-t=60
5
2 wind load-Vb=76m- wind load-Vb=47m-
s-t=3600 s-t=3600
0
Wind load-Vb=76m- 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 wind load-vb=47m-
s-t=60 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 s-t=60
Displacement(m)
Displacement(m)

Figure 14. Peak displacements for 20-story (bracing system) Figure 17. Peak displacements for 30-story (shearwall system)

20 story- Shear wall System 40 story Deep Soil(Mean)

35
20
Deep soil(Mean)
18 30 Rock Soil(Mean)
Rock Soil(Mean)
16
25
Rock soil(Mean+)
14 Wind Load-V=76m-
s-t=3600 20
12 wind load-Vb=47m-
Mean+ (Deep soil)
Story

s-t=3600
Story

15
10
Mean+ (Rock soil) wind load-Vb=47m-
8 10 s-t=60
6 wind load-Vb=76m-
5 wind load-Vb=76m-
s-t=60
s-t=3600
4 wind load-Vb=47m-
s-t=3600 0 Deep soil(Mean+)
2
wind load-Vb=47m-
0 s-t=60 -5
Wind load-Vb=76m-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
s-t=60
Displacement(m)
Displacement(m)

Figure 15. Peak displacements for 20-story (shearwall system) Figure 18. Peak displacements for 40-story (outrigger system)
increasing height, responses related to peak story shear in the stories, peak story shear due to deep soils ground motions
two types of soil converge to each other and even in higher become dominant (thats obvious in 40-story building).
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 1613

20 story-Bracing system 30 story-shear wall

Deep Soil(Mean) Deep soil(Mean)
20 30
18 Rock Soil(Mean) Rock soil(Mean)
16 25
Mean+ (Deep soil) Wind Load-V=76m-
14
20 s-t=3600
12 Mean+ (Rock soil) Mean+ (Deep soil)
Story

story
10 15
wind load-Vb=47m- Mean+ (Rock soil)
8 s-t=3600
wind load-Vb=47m- 10
6 wind load-Vb=76m-
s-t=60 s-t=60
4
wind load-Vb=76m- 5 wind load-Vb=47m-
2 s-t=3600 s-t=3600
0 wind load-Vb=76m- 0 wind load-Vb=47m-
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 s-t=60 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 s-t=60
Peak Story Shear(Ton) Peak Story Shear(Ton)

Figure 19. Peak story shear for 20-story (bracing system) Figure 22. Peak story shear for 30-story (shear wall system)

20 story-Shear wall system 40 story

20
Deep Soil(Mean) 35 Deep Soil(Mean)
18
16
Rock Soil(Mean) 30 Rock Soil(Mean)
14 Wind Load-V=76m- 25
wind load-Vb=47m-
12 s-t=3600 s-t=3600
Mean+ (Deep soil) 20
Story

10 wind load-Vb=47m-
Story

Mean+ (Rock soil) 15 s-t=60

8
wind load-Vb=76m-
6 wind load-Vb=76m- 10 s-t=3600
4 s-t=60 Deep soil(Mean+)
wind load-Vb=47m- 5
2
s-t=3600 Rock soil(Mean+)
0 wind load-vb=47m- 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 s-t=60 wind load-Vb=76m-
-5
Peak Story shear(Ton) s-t=60
0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Peak Story shear(Ton)

Figure20. Peak story shear for 20-story (shear wall system)

30 story-Bracing System Figure 23. Peak story shear for 40-story (outrigger system)
30
Deep soil(Mean)
(mean) due to deep soil types and rock soil types with extreme
Rock soil(Mean) dynamic wind load in this study (basic wind speed 76m/s and
25
wind duration 3600 m/s), it is obvious that peak of
Mean+ (Deep soil) displacement and drift of models along the height are sensitive
20
parameters to dynamic wind load, because as it is observed
Mean+ (Rock soil)
Story

15 responses stem from applying extreme dynamic load on

10
5 s-t=60
0 s-t=3600
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Peak story Shear(Ton)
Figure 21. Peak story shear for 30-story (bracing system)
Regarding to analytical results, among 5 tall buildings that
subjected to dynamic wind load, just 40-story building under
dynamic time history wind load with basic wind speed 76 m/s
and wind duration 3600 sec entered in nonlinear phase. In
comparison with seismic load in all responses, growth rate of
dynamic wind forces more increases with increasing height of
tall buildings. With comparing average quantity of responses
wind load-Vb=47m- structures get closer to responses due to rock soil types with
s-t=3600 increasing height and finally, in 40-story building, peak
wind load-Vb=47m- displacements due to extreme wind load became more than
wind load-Vb=76m- average quantity of responses (mean) due to rock soil types.
According to figure 14, 15, 16, 17 that included peak
5000 6000
Wind load- displacements derived from dynamic wind and seismic load,
Vb=76m-s-t=60 separately, the structures with bracing system are more
flexible that ones with shear wall system.
In these figures, it is obvious that with increasing basic wind
speed and height, difference of wind duration will be more
effective in comparison with lower basic wind speed (47m/s).
On the other hand, at the same basic wind speed, with
decreasing wind duration, because of being neighbor of gust
wind speed to wind speed, participation of gust in mean wind
speed is increasing and vice versa. Therefore, this is an
acceptable reason for this fact that with increasing wind
duration mean wind speed decrease (Durst 1960).
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011
6.1 Evaluation and comparison of frequency domain of
dynamic wind load and seismic load
Figure 24, 25 show power spectral density of dynamic time
history wind load calculated regarding to basic wind speed
76m/s at 5 levels and PSD of earthquake force in 40st floor
due to 8 deep soil ground motions for 40-story building,
respectively. Figure 24 indicate that in lower frequency
domain, dynamic wind load increase with respect to
increasing in height and also in frequency domain higher than
0.01 Hz, variability or fluctuation of dynamic wind load
increases. Gradually dynamic wind forces diminish in
frequency domain higher than 0.1 Hz.
Magnitude of these fluctuations in wind force with respect
to figure 24 can be computed by introducing a parameter
called RMS (Root Mean Square). Indeed by calculating the
area that is under the diagram of related to each story, RMS
1.00E+16
Power Spectral Density(N 2 /Hz)
1.00E+14
1.00E+12
1.00E+10
1.00E+08
5st Floor
1.00E+06
1.00E+04
15st Floor
25st Floor
1.00E+02
35st Floor
1.00E+00
40st Floor
1.00E-02
0.0001
Figure 24. PSD of dynamic wind force for 40-story building
along the height
Figure 25. PSD of produced earthquake force in 40th floor
due to 8 deep soil ground motions in 40-story building
1614
can be acquired and according to the calculated RMS,
quantity of RMS in each of 5 levels increases with increasing
in height. In other words, this description means that average
of absolute fluctuations of dynamic wind forces increase with
increasing in height of tall buildings.
Figure 25 in comparison with figure 24 indicates that
earthquake forces in higher frequency domain reach to their
peak of magnitude and finally, being neighbor of peak of
frequency content in earthquake force to the modes of 5
models is a significant reason for dominating the responses
derived (3 prominent structural parameter that are discussed in
this study) due to seismic load in comparison with dynamic
wind force.
7 CONCLUSION
Among these 3 parameters that were evaluated in relation to
dynamic wind load, Peak drift and displacement are two
important parameters for comfort criteria that affect human
perception to motion in the low frequency range of 0-1 Hz
encountered in tall buildings.
Being close peak of frequency content of earthquake forces
along in stories to fundamental modes of models can be
reasonable proof for dominating earthquake force against
dynamic wind forces and also this concept causes stimulating
and resonating higher modes of tall buildings.
According to figure 14, 15, 16, 17 that included peak
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 displacements derived from dynamic wind and seismic load,
Frequency(Hz) separately, the structures with bracing system are more
flexible that ones with shear wall system.
With this assumption that mass of all stories are equal,
according to F=M.ag (M is mass of each story, ag is
acceleration of ground motion measured by accelerograms
and F is earthquake force applied to each story), time history
earthquake forces applied to each story (figure 25) are
uniform quantity along the height whereas not only dynamic
wind force in not constant along the height but also it becomes
larger and more intense with increasing height.
REFERENCES
[1] Simiu E, Scanlan RH. Wind effects on structures. 3rd ed. New York:
Wiley; 1996.
[2] ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2006. ASCE 7-05,
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Including
Supplement No. 1. ASCE: Reston, VA.
[3] Liu H. Wind engineeringA handbook for structural engineers.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 1991.
[4] Benfratello S, Falsone G, Muscolino G. Influence on the quadratic term
in the along-wind stochastic response of SDOF of structures.
Engineering Structures 1996;18(8):68595.
[5] Deodatis G. Simulation of ergodic multivariate stochastic processes.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1996;22(8):77887.
[6] American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC), (2005). "Specification
for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-05", Chicago (IL):
American Institute for Steel Construction.
[7] American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements For
Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05).
[8] Building and Housing Research Center, (2007). "Iranian Code of
Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings [Standard No.2800,
3th Edition] ", Tehran, Iran.
[9] CSI (Computers & Structures, Inc.). 2007. Perform 3D Version 4.0.3.
Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment of 3D Structures. CSI:
Berkeley, CA.
[10] Shinozuka, M., and Deodatis, G. (1991). Simulation of stochastic
processes by spectral representation. Appl. Mech., Rev., 44(4), 191-
204.