discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283480303
Article in Engineer - Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka October 2015
DOI: 10.4038/engineer.v47i1.6858
CITATIONS READS
0 513
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by M.T.R. Jayasinghe on 26 January 2016.
Abstract: Wind load calculations are done for a medium-rise building with 48 m height locates in an
urban area of Sri Lanka. Five different international wind loading standards were selected to calculate wind loads
according to prevailing conditions in Sri Lanka. Available 3 second gust wind speed is converted in to mean
hourly wind speed and 10 minutes average wind speed to use selected wind loading standards. The difference of
wind load calculations is evaluated by using member forces in columns, beams, and shear walls obtained from a
3D finite element modelling. The comparison displays that both the Australian standards yields higher wind
loads compared to other selected standards. The use of higher terrain-height multiplier for cyclone prone zone 1
contributes much larger member forces compared to other cases. None of the standards exceeds the serviceability
criteria, which evaluate by means of drift index.
25 ENGINEER
Following the introduction of this study, geographical and meteorological conditions.
section 2 briefly describes the historical and Not only the basic wind speeds but also wind
current practices of wind engineering in Sri zoning is needed to be revised because some
Lanka. The selected international wind loading parts of the island may not be free from
standards will be introduced in section 3. cyclones anymore as assumed by the design
Section 4 illustrates the details of 3-D finite manual. For an example, according to the
element model. The conversion procedure of 3- historical cyclone data, there were two cyclones
second gust wind speeds to wind speeds with that entered the country through West coast in
different averaging time explains in section 5. 1925 and 1967 [8], which is basically located in
Section 6 displays results of member forces wind zone 3 with low probability of hitting by a
obtained from finite element modelling. Finally cyclone.
conclusion illustrates the possible reasons for Addition to the design manual, the most
differences and similarities on wind load common practice was use of previous British
calculation done with five different wind code of practice; CP 3 Chapter V-Part 2: 1972[1].
loading standards. The quasistatic approach used in CP 3 Chapter
V-Part 2: 1972[1], is quite accurate in estimating
2. Previous practice in Sri Lanka wind loads on mediumrise buildings but less
Much less attention was paid in designing accurate in predicting behaviour of tall slender
ordinary buildings against high wind structures with dynamic behaviour like modern
conditions until a massive cyclone hit Eastern highrise buildings [9]. On the other hand,
and North-Eastern coastal areas of Sri Lanka in many factors given in previous code of practice
1978. The damage that occurred in 1978 cyclone such as pressure coefficients, statistical factor,
was huge not only due to underestimation of concept of return period has changed with the
wind load at design stage but also due to poor advance of wind engineering researches done
workmanship and low quality of building over last few decades. The new standards,
materials [4].The huge losses in both human which supressed CP 3 Chapter V Part 2 such
lives and properties led the production of the as BS 6399-Part 2:1997[3], and EN 1991-1-
first Sri Lankan mandatory document about 4:2005[2] incorporate those new data sets and
wind loading Design of buildings for high advance methods for wind load calculation
winds Sri Lanka [5] (Here after referred as which may lead to have better building design.
design manual). However, even after several decades general
The design manual was based on the previous practise in Sri Lanka has not changed much yet.
British code of practice CP 3 Chapter V Part 2: Thus evaluating wind loading standards in Sri
1972[1]. This document consists two main Lankan conditions is a timely requirement
sections; the first section is wind speeds and before employing them.
wind zoning map of Sri Lanka. The second Comparison of different wind loading
section is about proper design and construction standards is a common objective completed
methods to enhance wind resilient ability of a before adopting any international wind loading
low rise building. These simple techniques are standard by a country. A series of technical
addressing strengthening roof structure, proper papers published on Asia-Pacific Conference of
fixing of roof covering materials, increase the Wind Engineering (APCWE) ([10], [11], [12])
structural integrity of a low rise building, etc. focused to harmonize different wind loading
One of the important aspects of the design standards used in Asia-Pacific region.
manual is defining basic wind speeds and wind However, this objective is yet to be
zones in Sri Lanka. However, these basic wind accomplished as wind loading standards
speeds were not derived either by using a display significant discrepancies when use
properly measured data set or using sound them in conditions outside the country of
statistical derivation methods. According to the origin. Nevertheless, these Comparisons are
Clarke et al [4] these wind speeds are derived done in systematic manner for low-rise,
based on information such as damage survey medium-rise, and high-rise buildings
done along the cyclone path, available historical separately due to their inherent structural
data, considering distance from the coast line responses ([11], [12]). Tamura el al [10]
and particular location, and using Australian compared fifteen different wind loading
practices. Therefore, some researchers ([6], [7]) standards in Asia-Pacific region by using 48 m
raised doubts about magnitude of these wind height building and found that no significant
speeds not only due to the lack of theoretical correlation in basic reactions or dynamic
basis on derivation but also low wind speeds response. However, better correlations were
compared to other countries with similar observed for peak cladding pressure and force
ENGINEER 26
coefficient. The comparison done by Kola[13] 4:2005 [2] is the first real multinational wind
by using 4 international standards including loading standard published in recent past.Not
American, Canadian, Australian and British only it compromises many aspects presented in
displayed that design pressures on component other standards such as BS 6399.2:1997[3],
and cladding can be differ as large as 200%. AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 [15]but it also allows
adjusting methods and factors according to the
3. Selected codes and standards prevailing conditions in adopted country by
for the study means of a national annex.
Many Sri Lankan engineers are using different
international wind loading standards to design 4. Case study
multi-storey buildings. These standards are The majority of medium-rise buildings in Sri
ranging from old code of practices such as CP 3 Lanka are 2 to 15 storey buildings. Therefore, as
Chapter V Part 2 to newest code including a case study, a rectangular shaped office
Euro standard. By considering most popular building with 48 m height and plan dimension
practices found in Sri Lanka, following codes of 60 m x 30 m was analysed by using SAP 2000
and standards were selected for the comparison software[16] (Figure 1(a)).The same building
purpose of this study; CP 3 Chapter V Part was used by previous researchers [10]for
2:1972[1], BS 6399.2:1997[3], AS 1170.2:1989[14], comparison of wind load calculation by using
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002[15] and EN 1991-1- different international wind loading standards.
4:2005[2]. This building was assumed to be located in
CP 3 Chapter V-Part2:1972 [1] is the most anurban area of Sri Lanka. It is also assumed
familiar practice in Sri Lanka, which uses quasi- that building has 12 storey with 4 m floor-to-
static method to calculate wind loads on a floor height. All structural components are
building, which is more suitable for evaluating designed in detail to simulate realistic
wind loads on low- to medium-rise buildings structural behaviour of the building. Building is
rather than evaluating structural response of designed as a concrete wall-frame structure.
high rise buildings. Many like to continue this Columns and beams act as a frame structure
practice because of its simplicity and their while shear walls are served as walls of the
familiarity about the code. BS 6399.2:1997 [3] is service core.600mm x 600mm columns are in a
the newer version of the British standard and 6m x 6m grid from ground floor to 12th floor.
capable to handle both static and dynamic All columns are connected by using 600 mm x
behaviour of a building. It is necessary to 400 mm (depth x width) beams at the slab level.
mention that BS 6399.2:1997 [3] was recently Slab thickness is selected as 175 mm to satisfy
suppressed by EN 1991-1-4:2005 [2] not because deflection criterion. Shear walls are designed as
of technical deficiency of this standard but 300 mm thick reinforced concrete walls around
merely as a strategic decision made to comply service core of the building. The soft zoning lift
with Euro standards. The difference between system, ducts, and toilets are located within the
old Australian standard AS 1170.2:1989 [14] and service core. All columns and beams are
the latest version AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 [15] is modelled in SAP 2000[16] FEM package as
the technique that use to calculate dynamic frame members with 6 degree of freedom while
response of a building. Gust load factor is a slab and shear walls are simulated as four-
more popular method to calculate wind load by nodes shell elements with membrane and plate-
considering both fluctuating wind speed and bending behaviour. The diaphragm constraint
dynamic behaviour of a structure. AS is used for slabs to preserve membrane action
1170.2:1989 [14] uses this method and it of the slab. Other than the dead load of
generally uses 3 second gust velocity as basic structural members, super imposed and live
wind speed. Therefore AS 1170.2:1989[14]can be loads are applied in model according to the
adopted easily with available wind speed data BS6399: Part 1: 1996[3]. Wind loads on building
in Sri Lanka. AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 [15] has are applied in two orthogonal directions as joint
changed some factors and methods used in the loads at the column - beam junctions on the
previous Australian standard and made it a wind ward and leeward faces separately as
simple document to use. Apart from above shown in Figure 1 (b) .
reasons, Australian standards cover wide
spectrum of wind including cyclones and it is 5. Basic wind speeds with
used by many island nations such as Fiji, different averaging time
Solomon Island, etc. However, latest Australian Wind loading standards use different time
standard uses mean hourly wind speed instead averaged wind speeds to calculate wind loads
of 3 second gust wind speeds. EN 1991-1- on structures. However in Sri Lankan context,
27 ENGINEER
available wind speed data are only 3 second gust In this study, it is assumed that building sites in
wind speeds in three wind zones. Therefore, it is all three zones are within 2 km from the sea, thus
necessary to convert 3 second gust wind speeds to having 1.78 for value of Sb.
one hour or 10 minutes average wind speeds by
using some conversion factors. Calculated mean hourly wind speed is converted in
Firstly, 3 second gust wind speeds are converted in to 10 minutes average wind speed by using factor
to mean hourly wind speed as method proposed by 1.06 as proposed by the Institute of Civil Engineers
Cook [17]. According to Cooks method, the mean in United Kingdom (ICEUK) [18]. The wind speeds
hourly wind speed (Vmean) at can be calculated in all three zones with different average times are
from gust wind speed (VG) as shown Equation (1). shown in Table 1.
(a) (b)
Figure 1- (a) Finite element 3 D models of 48 m height building (b) wind load applied on
wind ward and leeward sides of the building (wind load calculation done according to
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 [15] for wind zone 01)
Where,Sb is the terrain and building factor at 10 m 6.1. Wind induced forces
height in an open terrain as given in Table 4 of BS
6399.2:1997[3]. Wind loading standards only facilitate to calculate
wind pressures at different heights of the building.
The value of Sb is only changing with distance from By multiplying these values with
sea toa site of interesting to calculate wind speed.
Post disaster
Post disaster
structure
structure
structure
structure
structure
structure
Normal
Normal
Normal
ENGINEER 28
corresponding contributory areas will give the member forces are calculated for the following
wind load at a particular height. However, it is load combinations:
not the actual force experienced by structural 1. 1.2(Dead loads[G]) + 1.2(Live load[Q]) +
members due to their load sharing mechanisms. 1.2(Wind load[W])
These actual member forces are important in 2. 1.0 (Dead loads[G]) + 1.4(Wind load[W])
designing structural members. Structural 3. 1.4 (Dead loads[G]) + 1.4(Wind load[W]) and
member forces in columns, beams, and shear 4. Wind load only([W]).
walls can be obtained by using 3-D finite All wind loads are calculated according to
element model by applying external loads, in provisions given in selected wind loading
this study it is wind loads. standards. The higher terrain-height multiplier
The member forces used for comparison in this provided in Australian standards for cyclone
study are maximum values of axial force, shear prone areas is used only for zone 1 to account
force and bending moment in columns, shear the higher probability of hit by a cyclone of that
forces and bending moments in beams, base area.
moment and base shear at the support level and For the purpose of comparison, all results are
maximum compressive stress in shear walls. shown as normalised forces with respect to
Wind induced forces such in columns, beams, result obtained for each case for CP 3 Chapter
supports and shells on 48 m high building in all V- Part 2:1972[1].
three zones are shown in Figure 2 to 9. All
(a) (b)
Figure 2- (a) Column loads (b) Beam loads for load combination 1.2G+1.2Q+1.2W (wind flow
perpendicular to 60 m side)
(a) (b)
Figure 3- (a) Column loads (b) Beam loads for load combination 1.0G+1.4W (wind flow
perpendicular to 60 m side)
29 ENGINEER
(a) (b)
Figure 4- (a) Column loads (b) Beam loads for load combination 1.4G+1.4W (wind flow
perpendicular to 60 m side)
(a) (b)
Figure 5- (a) Column loads (b) Beam loads for wind load only (wind flow perpendicular to 60 m
side)
(a) (b)
Figure 6- (a) Column loads (b) Beam loads for load combination 1.2G+1.2Q+1.2W (wind flow
perpendicular to 30m side)
ENGINEER 30
Figure 7- (a) Column loads (b) Beam loads for load combination 1.0G+1.4W (wind flow
perpendicular to 30m side)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 8- (a) Column loads (b) Beam loads for load combination 1.4G+1.4W (wind flow
perpendicular to 30m side)
(a) (b)
Figure 9-(a) Column loads (b) beam loads for wind loads only (wind flow perpendicular to 30m
side)
According to the FEM analysis, the governing maximum difference in column shear force and
load case for designing structrural members is bending moment is about 10% in zone 01 when
load combination 1.2G+1.2Q+1.2W, which wind flows perpendicular to 60 m long wall for
gives the maximum structural load. Except both Australian standards. That differnce is
results obtained for both Australian standards about 6-7% when wind flows perpendicular to
in zone 01, other standards generate 30 m wall. According to Figure 2(b) and 6(b)
approximately equal member forces. The difference of forces in beams for Australian
31 ENGINEER
standards can be high as 15-18% and 5-6%in Chapter V- Part2:1972 (Table 2). The maximum
zone 01 when wind flows perpendicular to 60 normalized base shear value is 1.68 observed in
m side and 30m side respectively. This might be zone 2 for Euro code when wind flow
due to use of higher terrain-height multiplier in perpendicular to 30 m side. BS 6399.2:1997
zone 1 to accountit as a cyclone prone area, resulted base moment approximately equals to
which is subsequently resulteded higher wind CP 3 Chapter V- Part2:1972 in all three zones
loads. However, the difference of calculated when wind flow perpendicular to 60 m long
wind loads from different standards is clearly side. However, base shear values are quite
visible from results of load combination different for these two standards. The possible
1.0G+1.4W as the effect of dead load is reason might be the vertical distribution of
minimal. The use of higher terrain-height wind loads is different in BS 6399.2:1997 with
multiplier cause to have 50% higher shear force respect to CP 3 Chapter V- Part2:1972. This
and 30% higher bending moment in columns in argument is verify by the significant differences
zone 1 when wind flow perpendicular to the in base shear and base moment for BS
60m side. For rest of cases, both Australians 6399.2:1997 and CP 3 Chapter V- Part2:1972. in
standards lead to have slightly higher member all three zones for wind flow perpendicular to
forces compared to other wind loading 30 m side. BS 6399.2:1997uses Division-by-parts
standards. This means that use of higher method to distribute wind loadsalong the
terrain-height multiplier is not indeed building height rather than having linear
necessary unless a designer willing to design variation with heights.The size of eachdivision
highly cyclone resilient building such as depends on the along wind depth of the
cyclone shelters. However when the building.Thus it is varying with the wind
contribution of dead load has maximum such direction.According to the Figure 10 (a) and (b)
as in load combination 1.4G+1.4W column Euro standard yields higher base moment and
loads are reduced but beams loads are base shear values in all zones compared to CP 3
increasing with respective to the previous load Chapter V- Part2:1972. According to the values
combination 1.0G + 1.4W. According to the shown in Table 2, it can be concluded that this
Figure 9, in most of cases resulted column loads might be resulted from combine effect of higher
are equals for CP 3 Chapter V Part 2:1972[1] calculated wind loads and the use of division-
and BS 6399.2:1997[3] standards. However by-parts method for pressure distribution in EN
resulted beam loads are slightly lower for BS 1991-1-4:2005.
6399.2:1997[3] compared to the previous British
code of practice. Compare to two British 6 .3 Maximum shell stress in shear
standards, CP 3 Chapter V Part 2:19721[] and walls
BS 6399.2:1997[3] other three wind loading Similar to member forces, maximum
standards resulted slightly larger member compressive stress in shear walls is observed
forces for each load combination. This means for both Australian standards in zone 1. From
that calculated wind loads by using Australian Figures 11(a) and (b), the maximum normalized
and Euro code are higher than the wind load compressive stress can be as high as 2.1 and 2
calculated by using British standards. for wind flow normal to 60 m side and 30 m
side respectively. Another striking feature of
6.2. Base reactions Figures 11(a) and (b) is all standards contribute
The summation of wind loads calculated from larger compressive stress in shear walls
different wind loads and their overall effect compared to CP 3 Chapter V- Part2:1972 . That
reflect from base reaction as summarized in difference is more prominent when wind flow
Table 2.The base shear and base moments normal to 30 m side than wind flow
valuesvary according to the derived pressure perpendicular to 60 m side.
values and their vertical distribution along the
height of the building.Therefore, in zone 1,
maximum base moment and base shear can be
observed for Australian standards, because of
their higher wind speeds resulting from higher
terrain-height multiplier used in zone1 reulted
larger wind loads. These values are almost
twice as the values derived from CP 3 Chapter
V- Part2:1972 (Figure 10(a)). In zone 2 and zone
3, Euro codes yielded higher base moment as
well as base shears values compared to CP 3
ENGINEER 32
Table 2- Base moment and base shear of 48m building for two orthogonal directions
Wind loading standard Wind flow perpendicular to 60 m side
Base moment (x 106 Nm) Base shear (x 103 N)
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
CP 3 Chapter V - Part 2:1972
BS 6399.2:1997
AS 1170.2:1989
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002
BS EN 1991-1-4:2005
Wind flow perpendicular to 30 m side
CP 3 Chapter V - Part 2:1972 49.6
BS 6399.2:1997 63.2
AS 1170.2:1989 100.5
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 100.4
BS EN 1991-1-4:2005 67.6
(a) (b)
Figure 10- Base moment and base shear of the 48m building (a) Wind flow perpendicular to 60 m
wall (b) Wind flow perpendicular to 30 m wall
(a) (b)
Figure 11- Maximum shell stress in shear walls of the 48m building (a) Wind flow perpendicular to
60 m side (b) Wind flow perpendicular to 30 m side
33 ENGINEER
6.4. Drift index in zone 1. However, these differences were
reduced in zone 2 and 3. In these zones 2 and
The drift index is calculated for 48 m height building 3, Euro codes yielded higher stresses due to
in order to determine the degree of wind sensitivity higher wind loads derived from the code.
RI WKH EXLOGLQJ 7KH PD[LPXP GHHFWLRQ LQ
serviceability limit condition is obtained by using3-D 4. Base shear and base moments are two major
QLWH HOHPHQW PRGHO ZLWK ZLQG ORDGV FDOFXODWHG measurements on determining the effects of
by using different standards. According to the wind loads, which are directly combine with
BS 8110-Part 2: 1985[19] the maximum allowable the wind load values and their distribution
GHHFWLRQ LV FDOFXODWHG DV KV ZKHUH KV LV WKH along the height of the building. Higher base
storey height of a single story building. Therefore,
0DMRU QGLQJV RI WKLV VWXG\ FDQ EH SUHVHQWHG DV Acknowledgement
followings;
1. Structural loads are varying according to the Authors of this paper like to express their
wind loads derived from the standards. gratitude towards National Disaster Management
&HQWHU 1'0& ZKR SURYLGHG QDQFLDO VXSSRUW
2. Both Australian standards give higher forces in throughout this study. They also wish to thank
zone 1 due to use of higher terrain multiplier for the Department of Civil Engineering, University
cyclonic areas. Unless designing an important of Moratuwa to provide necessary resources to
post disaster structure, this factor can be conduct this research successfully.
omitted to have a more economical design.
ENGINEER 34
Refferences 14. Australian standard for wind loads ; AS
1170.2:1989, Standards Australia, New South
Wales.
35 ENGINEER
View publication stats