Along-wind response in prismatic structures, design statements in Mexico

H. Hernndez-Barrios
1
, C. Muoz-Black
2
, A. Lpez-Lpez
3
.
1
Professor of Civil Engineering, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicols de Hidalgo, Morelia,
Michoacn, Mxico, hugohbarrios@yahoo.com.mx
2
Researcher, Gerencia de Ingeniera Civil, Instituto de Investigaciones Elctricas, Cuernavaca,
Morelos, Mxico, cjmb@iie.org.mx
3
Civil Engineering Coordinator, Gerencia de Ingeniera Civil, Instituto de Investigaciones
Elctricas, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mxico, alopez@iie.org.mx
ABSTRACT
At present, the Aeolian design of structures in Mexico is based on a consideration of the
statements specified by the Civil Works Design Manual-Wind Actions [1], MDOC as per Spanish
abbreviation, and the Complementary Practical Standards [2], NTC as per Spanish
abbreviation, to the Constructions Regulation of Federal District. Both these codes for wind
design employ the standards in the original model proposed by Davenport. However, because
the MDOC update is in process, in this paper are presented diverse formulations suggested in
major International Codes and Standard of wind design with the suggestion, to consider them in
the new version of the MDOC. It is concluded that for prismatic structures and for the design
conditions in Mexico, the approach recommended by the Eurocode [3] is the best estimation for
the along-wind response.
INTRODUCTION
Many wind sensitive structures are susceptible to along wind dynamic loads. This is the case of
towers, chimneys, tall buildings, suspension bridges, cable roof structures, pipes, transmission
lines, etc. Based on the recommendations of Liepmann, the method of the Dynamic Response
Factor (DRF) to consider the dynamic loads due to the wind on a structure was proposed by
Davenport [4]. The original model of the DRF, considers within the structural response the
contribution of the first vibration mode solely. This depends on the linear fundamental mode
shape of the structure itself and determines that the structure response can be separated into two
components: the background response (quasi-static) and the resonant response. Diverse authors
have proposed modifications to this model, among them are Vellozzi and Cohen [5], Vickery,
Simiu and Scanlan [6], Solari y Kareem [7] and Drybre and Hansen [8]. Some of the more
important Codes and Standards of wind design load, for example: the Eurocode [3], Japanese
Code [9], Canadian Code [10], the American Standard [11], Australian-New Zealand Standard
[12] and the Construction Code [13], have adopted these modifications.
The Civil Works Design Manual-Wind Actions [1] in Mexico (MDOC) is the major
reference to design wind sensitive structures, and suggests guidelines and procedures for
assessing the along-wind effects on tall structures as well as other wind effects. The
Complementary Practical Standard to the Constructions Regulation of Federal District, NTC, [2]
is the official code design applicable only in Mexico City, the countrys capital..
Although the 10-minute average period is the meterorological standard for the basic wind
velocity in many countries of continental Europe, in continental America the 3-second average
period is common except in Canada which has adopted a one-hour average period.
The last version of the Civil Works Design Manual-Wind Actions was reviewed in 1993.
More recently the Constructions Regulation of Federal District (Mexico City), was reviewed in
2004. Both standards define the basic wind velocity as 3s gust, and both codes adopt the
equivalent static wind load used in the original model of Gust-loading factor proposed by
Davenport [2]. The dynamic response in both codes is obtained following similar background
and procedure as in the Canadian Code [10]. However the Gust-loading factor, based in one hour
average time, is converted to 3s average time. This produces some confusion in the application
of the procedure. The MDOC update is in process, and in order to determine the next guidelines
and procedures for assessing the along-wind effects on tall structures and other wind effects,
diverse formulations proposed in major International Codes and Standards were reviewed and
considered.
METHODOLOGY
The procedures suggested by diverse codes of design to quantify the longitudinal response of
prismatic structures in the wind direction are analyzed. In the formulation of any procedures and
calculations, the equivalent dynamic force and wind load effects depend on the mean wind
velocity profiles, turbulence intensity, wind spectrum, turbulence length scale, and correlation
structure of the wind field. An overview of the definitions or descriptions these wind
characteristics in codes and standards is provided in this paper. To facilitate a convenient
comparison, the expressions were rewritten with the original expressions in the codes.
Furthermore, all the multiplier factors in the codes were assumed equal to the units considered
and the average wind velocity was taken equal to that suggested in each code.
ALONG-WIND RESPONSE FOR TALL BUILDINGS, AUSTRALIAN/NEWZEALAND STANDARD
[12]
The Australian/New Zealand Standard [12] describes forces, moments, deflection, accelerations,
and the like, in terms of a mean value plus the average maximum velocity likely to occur in a 10
min period. However, the regional wind speeds
R
V has been corrected to consider approaching
terrain, structure height, and local interference (adjacent buildings) to a benchmark of a height of
10.0 m in open country terrain (category 2). The values represent the maximum 2s to 3 s gust
occurring within 1h at a height of 10 m, in open country terrain with a roughness length
0
0 020 z . m = (e.g., airport). Although the basic velocity is defined as 3 s gust, it is converted to
the 1 h mean wind velocity to evaluate the Dynamic Response Factor and the wind-induced
response of wind structures.
The Dynamic Response Factor
dyn
C approximately accounts for the background
(quasistatic) and resonant components of the loading by being applied to the quasi-static gust
loading. The factor incorporates the effects of correlation (size reduction) and resonance. This
factor differs from the Gust Factor, G, which was applied to the mean wind loading distribution
(moment). The equation for the Dynamic Response Factor contains two dynamic terms, one for
the background effects (Ie:, sub-resonant) which accounts for the quasi-static dynamic response
below the natural frequency, and one for resonant effects that depends on the gust energy and
aerodynamic admittance at the resonant frequency, and on the damping ratio for the structure.
The resonant contribution is small for structures with natural frequency greater than 1 Hz
, ) 1 T s ( . The dynamic response factor for structures with small frontal area then approaches the
square of the ratio of peak gust wind speed to the mean wind speed, i.e., the dynamic method
will give similar loads to the static method. For structures with large frontal dimensions, the
reduction produced by a low background factor
s
B may result in the Dynamic Analysis giving
lower loads than the static analysis. The Australian/New Zealand Standard considers that if the
structure has a first mode fundamental period, T , less than 1s, then 1 0
dyn
C . = and it is greater
than 5s, it is not covered by this Standard. The procedure for the Dynamic Response Factor
dyn
C
in the Australian/New Zealand Standard is summarized in Table 1. The Dynamic Response
Factor
dyn
C increases with increasing height on the structure.
Table 1: Procedure of Dynamic Response Factor in the AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Standard [12]
h
L is a measure of the integral turbulence length scale at height h :
0 25
85
10
.
h
h
L
|
=
|
' .
h
I is the turbulence intensity 1
v h
P g I = +
Reduced frequency
3
3 5
s
a
H
des,

n h
N .
V
=
3
4
s
a oh
B
des,

n b
N
V
=
Where
3s
des,

V is the design wind speed and h is the average roof height of a structure above the ground,
oh
b is
the average breadth of the structure between 0 and h (m).
Aerodynamics
admittance functions
1
1
h
H
R
N P
=

+
]
1
1
b
B
R
N P
=

+
]
Size reduction factor
h b
S R R =
2
4
v
t
v
n S (n )
E

(
=
(
]
longitudinal power
spectral density
, )
2 5
2
6
4
1 70 8
v
v
n S (n )
x

. x

(
=
(
]
+ 3s
a h
des,

n L
x P
V
=
Background factor, where
sh
b is the average breadth of the
structure between s and h
, )
2 2
1
0 26 0 46
1
s
sh
h
B
. h s . b
L
=
+
+
Resonant factor
2
4
v
s
v
n S (n )

R S

(
=
(
(
]
]
Where is the ratio of structural damping to
critical damping of a structure
s
H is the height factor for the resonant response :
2
1
s
s
H
h
|
= +
|
' .
Peak factor
, )
2 600
R e a
g log n

=
]
with 600 10 T s minutes = = ; and 3 7
v
g . = .
Dynamic response
factor
3
2 2
1 2
1 2 s
h v s R s s
dyn
v h
I g B g H R
C
g I
+ +
=
+
ALONG-WIND RESPONSE FOR TALL BUILDINGS, EUROCODE [3]
The Eurocode [3] defines the fundamental value of basic wind,
0 b,
V , as the 10-minute mean
wind velocity with an annual risk of being exceeded of 0.02, irrespective of direction and season,
at a height of 10 m above ground level in terrain Category II. Category II is flat open country
terrain with low vegetation and isolated obstacles with separations of at least 20 m in height. The
recommended value of air density is
3
1 25 . kg m = , which is relatively high and relates to very
low temperatures at low altitude. The mean wind velocity , )
m
V z at a height z above the terrain
depends on the terrain roughness and orography and on the basic wind velocity,
0 b,
V , and it will
be determined using the equation,
, ) , )
0 07
0
0 0
0
0 19
0 05
.
m dir season b,
z
z
V z C z . ln C C V
. z
|
|

= |
|
] |
' .
' .
(1)
where
dir
C is the direction factor,
season
C is the season factor,
0
C is the orography factor, and
0
z is the roughness length. The intensity turbulence , )
v
I z at height z is defined as the standard
deviation of the turbulence divided by the mean wind velocity,
, )
, )
0
0
I
v
k
I z
z
C z ln
z
=
|
|
|
' .
for 200
mn
z z m s s
(2a)
, )
, )
v v mn
I z I z = for
mn
z z s
(2b)
where
I
k is the turbulence factor, once recommended value for it is 1.0.
Table 2 shows the expressions to obtain the Structural Factor,
s d
c c , suggested by the
Eurocode. Once obtained, the Structural Factor value it will calculate the equivalent dynamic
force. The Eurocode suggests that for buildings with less than 15m in height the value of
s d
c c
may be taken as 1.0, and for framed buildings which have structural walls and which are less
than 100 m high and whose height is less than 4 times the in-wind depth, , ) 4 0 h d . ( , the value of
s d
c c may be taken as 1.0.
Table 2: Expressions for the Structural Factor in the BS EN 1991-1-4-4 Code [3]
, ) L z is the integral length
scale of turbulence
, ) 300
200

z
L z
|
=
|
' .
if
mn
z z >
, )
, )
mn
L z L z = if
mn
z z (
, )
0
0 67 0 05 . . ln z = +
Background response factor
, )
2
0 63
1
1 0 90
.
s
B
b h
.
L z
=
|
+
|
+
|
' .
Reduced frequency
, )
1
4 6
,x
h
m
n h
N .
V z
= ;
, )
1
4 6
,x
B
m
b n
N .
V z
=
2
2
1 1
1
2
h
N
h
h
h
R e
N
N

|
=
|
' .
for 0
h
N ) 1
h
R = for 0
h
N =
Aerodynamics admittance
functions
2
2
1 1
1
2
B
N
B
B
B
R e
N
N

|
=
|
' .
for 0
B
N ) ; 1
B
R = for 0
B
N =
Size reduction factor
, ) , )
h h B b
S R
R
=
No-dimensional power spectral
density function
, )
, )
, )
2 5 3
6 8
1 10 2
v
L
v
nS z, n
. x
S z, n
. x

(
= =
(
+
]
, )
, )
m
nL z
x
V z
=
Resonant factor
, )
1 2
2
4
v s ,x
s
v
n S z , n

R S

(
= (
(
(
]
(
]
Where
2
s
s

= is the
damping ratio, percent
critical for buildings,
s
is
the total logarithmic
decrement of damping
The up-crossing frequency
2
1 2 2
0 08
,x
R
n . Hz
B R
= >
+
The limit of 0 08 . Hz
corresponds to 3
p
k = .
Peak factor
, )
, )
0 60
2 3
2
p
.
k ln
T
ln
T
= + >
T is the average time
for the mean wind velocity
(10 minutes), 600 T s =
Structural Factor
, )
, )
2 2
1 2
1 7
p v s
s d
v s
k I z B R
c c
I z
+ +
=
+
ALONG-WIND RESPONSE FOR TALL BUILDINGS, UNITED STATES STANDARD [11]
The ASCE Code [11] is based on a similar background as that of the Eurocode [7] and has
resulted in very similar formulations in these codes, except that the 0.925, in the expression for
calculation gust effect factor (Table 3) is an adjustment factor used to make the wind load in the
updated code consistent with the former version. The ASCE provides mean wind velocity
profiles based on both 3 s and 1 h averaging times, whereas the Eurocode utilizes averaging
times of 10 min for the mean velocity profiles.
The integral length scale of turbulence,
10
z
z
L
e

=
(
]
(3)
The mean hourly wind speed at height z,
10

z
z
V b V

=
(
]
(4)
Where V is the basic wind speed corresponds to a 3 s in exposure C category (maps) and the
turbulence intensity,
1 6
10
z
I c
z

=
(
]
(5)
The constants in the expressions 3 to 5 are reported in ASCE-2005 [11]. The procedure
for Gust Effect Factor is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Procedure of Gust Effect Factor in the ASCE/SEI 7-2005 Standard [11]
Background response factor
2
0 63
1
1 0 63
.
z
Q
B h
.
L
=

+
+ (
(
]
Reduced frequency
1
4 6
h
z
n h
N .
V
=
1
4 6
B
z
n B
N .
V
=
1
15 4
L
z
n L
N .
V
=
Aerodynamics admittance functions
2
2
1 1
1
2
h
N
h
h
h
R e
N
N

|
=
|
' .
for 0
h
N )
1
h
R = for 0
h
N =
2
2
1 1
1
2
B
N
B
B
B
R e
N
N

|
=
|
' .
for 0
B
N )
1
B
R = for 0
B
N =
2
2
1 1
1
2
L
N
L
L
L
R e
N
N

|
=
|
' .
for 0
L
N )
1
L
R = for 0
L
N =
Size reduction factor
, )
0 53 0 47
h B L
S R R . . R = +
Longitudinal power spectral density
, )
2 5 3
7 47
1 10 3
v
v
n S (n )
. x
. x

(
=
(
+
]
where
1 z
z
n L
x
V
=
Resonant factor
2
2
1
v
s
v
n S (n )
R S

(
=
(
]
where
s
is the damping ratio, percent critical for buildings
Peak factor
, )
, )
1
1
0 577
2 3600
2 3600
R
.
g ln n
ln n
= + where 3600 1 T s h = =
3 4
Q
g . = 3 4
v
g . =
Gust Effect Factor
2 2 2 2
1 1 7
0 925
1 1 7
Q R z
f
v z
. I g Q g R
G .
. g I

+ +
(
=
(
+
(
]
ALONG-WIND RESPONSE FOR TALL BUILDINGS, JAPAN CODE [9]
The Japan Code [9] suggests the Gust Effect Factor,
D
G , is to be obtained utilizing the
equivalent static wind force of along-wind response design. The Gust Effect Factor is based on
the overturning moment as described by the equation,
1
Dmax D D MD D MD
D
D D D
M M g
g
G
M M M

= = = + (6)
where:
Dmax
M ,
D
M and
MD
are maximum value, mean value and rms of overturning
moment at the base of the building, respectively.
Dmax
M and
MD
involve load effect due to
the dynamic response of the building, and it is composed by using the background component
and resonance component.
The basic wind speed
0
U corresponds to the 100-yearrecurrence 10-minute mean wind
speed over a flat and open terrain (category II, in the code) at an elevation of 10 m. The along-
wind loads on structural frames are calculated from,
D H D D
W q C G A = (7)
where , )
D
W N is the along-wind load at height Z,
D
C is the wind force coefficient,
, )
2
A m is
the projected area at height Z,
D
G is the gust effect factor and
, )
2
H
q N m is the velocity
pressure, defined by,
2
1
2
H H
q
U
= (8)
where
3
1 22
m
. kg m = is the air density and , )
H
U m s is the design wind velocity.
Turbulence intensity
Z
I is defined according to the conditions of the construction site,
Z rz gI
I I E = (9)
In this paper, the topography factor is taken to be 1 0
gI
E . = and the turbulence intensity
on flat terrain categories is,
0 05
0 10
.
rZ
G
Z
I .
Z

|
| =
|
' .
for
b G
Z Z Z ( s (10a)
0 05
0 10
.
b
rZ
G
Z
I .
Z

|
| =
|
' .
for
b
Z Z s (10b)
where , ) Z m is the height above ground,
b
Z ,
G
Z and , are parameters determining the
exposure factor (Table A6.3, in the code).
Table 4 shows the expressions to obtain the Gust Effect Factor,
D
G , suggested by the
Japan Code.
Table 4: Procedure of Gust Effect Factor in the AIJ Code [9]
0 50
100
30
.
Z
Z
L
|
=
|
' .
for 30
g
m Z Z ( s
100
Z
L = for 30 Z m s
z
L is the turbulence scale , ) Z m is the
height above ground,
G
Z is the parameter
determining the exposure factor
Reduced frequency and
Aerodynamics
admittance functions
10
2 4495
min
D
H
H
f H
N .
U
=
0 50
2
0 90
1
H .
H
.
R
N
=

+
]
10
3
min
D
B
H
f B
N
U
=
1
1
B
B
R
N
=
+
D H B
S R R =
Power spectral density
function
, ,
2 5
2 6
4
1 71
v
v
n S (n )
x
F

x

(
= =
(
]
+
where
10min
D H
H
f L
x
U
=
RMS of Overturning
moment coefficient
0 56
0 49 0 14
0 63
1
'
g
.
H
k
. .

C
BH
.
L
H
B

=

|

|
|

' .
+
`
|
|

' .

)
0 07 1
0 15 1
H
k .
B
H
k .
B
|
= >
|
' .

= (
|
' .

1
20
1
3
B
R
N
=
+
0 57 0 3 2 0 053 0 042 A . .
R . .
= +
Resonant factor
, )
2 2
4
4
v
D D
'
D
v
g
n S (n )
A
R S

C


(
(
= ( (
(
( (
]
]
(
]
D
is the damping ratio, percent critical for buildings
Overturning moment
coefficient
1 1
3 3 6
g
C

= +
+
The up-crossing
frequency
1
D
D D
D
R
v f
R
=
+
Peak factor
, )
2 600 1 2
D D
g ln v . = +
the average time for the mean wind velocity
(10 minutes) 600 T s =
Gust Effect Factors
10
2
1 2 1
min
'
g
D H D D D
g
C
G I g R
C

(
= + +
(
(
]

ALONG-WIND RESPONSE FOR TALL BUILDINGS, CANADIAN CODE [10]

The wind load calculation procedure in Canadian Code [10] is called the Dynamic Procedure,
and is intended for determining overall wind effects, including amplified resonant response. The
wind pressure is based on mean hourly wind speed for the probability of being exceeded per year
of 1 in 50 (return period of 50 years). The Canadian Code considers that buildings whose height
is greater than 4 times their minimum effective width, or greater than 120m and other buildings
whose light weight, low frequency and low damping properties make them susceptible to
vibration shall be designed considering the dynamic effects of wind. The Canadian Code
employs a high gust energy factor, proposed by Davenport that is only on the mean wind speed
and the ground roughness, and is independent of the height.
Table 5 shows the expressions to obtain the Gust Effect Factor, suggested by the
Canadian Code.
Table 5: Procedure of Gust Effect Factor in NRCC 48192 Code [10]
Background turbulence factor
, )
914
4
0 2 3
4 1 1
3
1 1
1
457 122
H
x
B dx
xH xw
x


(
( (
( =
} ( (
(
( (
+ +
+
(
] ]
]
Reduced frequency and
Aerodynamics admittance
functions
1
8
3
h,terrain" n"
n
h
H
f H
N
V
= ;
1
1
h
h
R
N
=
+
1
10
h,terrain" n"
n
B
H
f w
N
V
= ;
1
1
B
B
R
N
=
+
Size reduction factor
3
h B

S R R =
Gust energy ratio
, )
, )
2
2 4 3
2
1
v
v
nS n
x
F

x

(
= =
(
+ ]
where
1
1220
h,terrain" n"
nD
H
f
x
V
=
Resonant factor
, )
2
1
v
s
v
n S n
R S

(
=
(
]
where
2
s
s

= is the critical damping ratio in the along-wind direction

The up-crossing frequency
n
s
SF
f
SF
B
=
+
Peak factor
0 577
2
2
p
.
g ln
T
ln
T
= +
Where T=3600s
Coefficient of variation
, )
e
K
B R
C
|
= +
|
' .
K is a factor related to the surface roughness
coefficient of terrain and it taken
0 08 K . = for exposure A
0 10 K . = for exposure B
0 14 K . = for exposure C
eH
C is the exposure factor at the top of building, based on the profile of mean wind speed (commentary I [10])
Gust Effect Factor 1
g p

C g

|
= +
|
' .
EXAMPLE OF COMPARISON
A comparison of the analyzed procedures was elaborated initially through an application
example, where it is assumed that the wind speed is
3
40 23
s
U . m/s = (
600
25 62
s
U . m/s = or
3600
26 47
s
U . m s = ), at a 50-year recurrence, in terrain type B or equivalent (suburban areas,
wooded areas or other terrain with numerous closely spaced obstructions). In order to make the
comparison all the multiplier factors in the codes were assumed equal to the unit and the average
wind velocity was taken equal to that which was suggested in each code. The along wind
response due to the dynamic effect of the wind is calculated for the following properties of the
structure: m 88 . 182 = H (height), m 48 . 30 = B (width), m 48 . 30 = L (depth),
1
0 20 n . Hz = (first
mode natural frequency of vibration in the along-wind direction), 01 . 0 = (structural damping
ratio), a linear fundamental mode shape, building density 192 03
3
m . kg/m = , air density of
3
1 22 . kg m = and the 1 30
d
C . = .
By applying each one of the design codes previously described, results are shown in
Table 6. In this Table it is noted that the higher value of the dynamic response factor is the one
obtained with the Canadian Code, nevertheless, is not the one that gives higher equivalent static
forces. The design code that gives higher equivalent forces is the Eurocode. The difference
between the dynamic response factors is in the order of 2.47, but the difference between the
greatest force and the minor force is on the order of 1.54 times. The previous remarks leads to
the conclusion that to compare the dynamic response factors proposed by diverse design codes is
an incorrect method, since the wind speed averaging time in each one of them is different. Thus,
it is necessary to compare the magnitude of the results between the equivalent forces. The
existing differences between the proposed equivalent static forces by the analyzed codes, are due
to several factors, among them can be mentioned: the wind speed averaging time, the turbulence
intensity of the site, the used turbulent length scale and the power spectral density.
Table 6: Comparison of results for the application example
Standard or Code DRF
DRF DRF /
max
Equivalent force
(N)
F F /
max
AIJ [9] 11 . 2 =
D
C 1.24 700 , 21 =
D
W 1.46
ASCE/SEI 7-2005 [11]
06 . 1 =
f
G
2.47 166 , 27 = F 1.17
AS/NZS [12]
08 . 1 =
dyn
C
2.45 624 , 20 = F 1.54
Eurocode [3] 71 . 1 =
d s
c c 1.53 788 , 31 =
w
F 1.00
NBC 2005 [10]
62 . 2 =
g
C
1.00 062 , 27 = F 1.18
PARAMETRIC STUDY
Additionally, a parametric study for the along wind response based on the slenderness ratio, H/B,
and natural period of one prismatic structure has been elaborated. The natural period of multi-
story buildings was calculated using the expression,
15
n
T = (11)
Where n is the numbers of story and T (s) is de natural period, so than if height of each storey is
2.5m, one building with H=37.5 m has a natural period of T=1.0 s. Generally, the terrain
categories are defined differently in each code. Table 7 shows the equivalence between the
different terrain categories in each code.
Table 7: Equivalence between different terrain categories
Code Cat. Code Cat.
AIJ
Eurocode
ASCE 7
NBC 2005
AS/NZS
V
IV
B
C
4
AIJ
Eurocode
ASCE 7
NBC 2005
AS/NZS
III
III
B
B
3
Code Cat. Code Cat.
AIJ
Eurocode
ASCE 7
AS/NZS
II
II
C
2
AIJ
Eurocode
ASCE 7
NBC 2005
AS/NZS
I
0
D
A
1
Figure 1 illustrates a comparison of gust effect factor by terrain category and building
height for 4 H B = , 1 0 D B . = and
3 10 1
40 23 25 62 26 47
s min h
V . m s U . m s V . m s = ~ = ~ = .,
for each code or standard. The gust effect factor becomes large with terrain category and
building height, except in Japan and Canadian Code, for all terrain categories.
Once calculated, the gust effect factor, the equivalent static force along-wind is
calculated. Figure 2 shows the equivalent static force on reference height obtained for each code
reviewed considered one structural damping ratio 0 01 . = , hold constant the air density
3
1 22 . kg m = , one projected area of 10 m
2
and 1 30
d
C . = . Figure 2 notes that there is slight
difference in the equivalent static forces results, and in all cases the ASCE-7 produced higher
equivalent forces for this H/B, but this is not true for others slenderness ratio, H/B [15].
ASCE 7-2005 Eurocode
AS/NZS AIJ
NBC 2005
Figure 1: Variation of the gust effect factor by terrain category and building height
ASCE 7-2005 Eurocode
AS/NZS AIJ
NBC 2005
Figure 2: Variation of the equivalent static force by terrain category and building height
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Australian/New Zealand Standard, Canadian Code and Japan Code, prescribe a length scale
formulation independent of terrain, Counihan [14] suggests a decreasing function of terrain
toughness. Canadian Code employs a gust energy factor, proposed by Davenport that depends
only on the mean wind speed and the ground roughness, and is independent of height.
In order to compare the estimates of wind load effects based on the codes and standards
considered, to compare only the dynamic response factors is not correct, since the wind speed
averaging time in each one of them is different. Thus, it is necessary to compare the magnitude
of the results between the equivalent static forces. The existing differences between the proposed
equivalent forces by the analyzed codes, are due to several factors, among them can be
mentioned: the wind speed averaging time, the turbulence intensity of the site, the used turbulent
length scale and the power spectral density.
It is concluded that for the prismatic structures and for the design conditions in Mexico,
the approach recommended by the Eurocode [3] is the best estimation for the along-wind
response. However, in Mexico the basic wind velocity is defined as 3 s gust, because of its need
to be converted to 10 minutes mean wind velocity to evaluate the gusts loading factor and the
wind-induced response of dynamics structures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The writers gratefully acknowledge support from Federal Electrical Utility (CFE-Mexico),
Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas (IIE), University of Michoacan (UMSNH) and COECyT-
Michoacan, for this study.
REFERENCES
[1] MDOC, Civil Works Design Manual-Wind Actions, Manual de Diseo de Obras Civiles, Diseo por
Viento, Comisin Federal de Electricidad-Instituto de Investigaciones Elctricas, Mxico, 1993.
[2] NTC, Complementary Practical Standards to the Constructions Regulation of Federal District,
Normas Tcnicas Complementarias al Reglamento de Construcciones del DF, Diseo por Viento, 2004.
[3] BS EN 1991-1-4-4:2005, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures, Part 1-4: General actions-Wind Actions,
British Standard, 2005.
[4] A. G. Davenport, The application of statistical concepts to the wind loading of structures, Proc.
Institution of Civil Engineers, 19,1961, 442-447.
[5] J. Vellozzi, E. Cohen, Gust response factors, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 94 (6), 1968, pp. 1295-1313.
[6] E. Simiu, R. Scanlan, Wind effects on structures: Fundamentals and applications to design, 3rd, Ed.,
1996, Wiley, New York, 688 pp.
[7] G. Solari, A. Kareem, On the formulation of ASCE 7-95 gust effect factor, J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
77 (1998) 673-684.
[8] C. Dyrbye, A. O. Hansen, Wind Loads on Structures, John Wiley and Sons, 1997, ISBN 0-471-95651-
1.
[9] AIJ, Architectural Institute of Japan, Recommendations for Loads on Buildings, Chapter 6, Wind
Loads, 2004.
[10] NRCC 48192, National Research Council Canada, Users Guide-NBC 2005 Structural
Commentaries Part 4 of Division B, 2005, ISBN 0-660-19506-2.
[11] ASCE/SEI 7-2005, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 2005, ISBN 0-7844-0809-2.
[12] AS/NZS 1170.0:2002, Australian/New Zealand Standard, Structural design actions, Part 0: General
Principles, 2005, ISBN 0-7337 4469-9.
[13] ACS, Cdigo de Construccin Modelo para Cargas por Viento, Asociacin de Estados del Caribe.
2004.
[14] Counihan, J. Adiabatic atmospheric boundary layer: a review and analysis of the data from the
period 1880-1972, Atmos. Environ., 9, 1975, pp. 871-905.
[15] Hernndez-Barrios, Factor de Amplificacin Dinmica y Simulacin de Rfagas de viento, Reporte
interno del Proyecto 12.2, Coordinacin de la Investigacin Cientfica, Universidad Michoacana de San
Nicols de Hidalgo, 2004.