Wind Induced Vibration and Dynamic Response On Concrete Column

Wind induced vibration and dynamic response
analysis on slender precast concrete poles

Author: Andrs Fernndez
Professor: Giovanni Solari
1 Abstract
A theoretical analysis is performed about the dynamic effects of wind load on slender precast concrete
columns. It is also studied the aerodynamic and aeroelastic response for square cross section columns.
The second order analysis of slender column is considered in this work. A comparison between steel
section and concrete section performance is made for a singular case.
Key words: aerodynamic, aero elasticity, slender precast concrete column, wind load response
2 Introduction
High rise lighting poles for stadiums or telecommunication towers for cell phone transmission antennas
are commonly made of steel. These types of structures are subjected to wind loads that generates
aerodynamic and aeroelastic effects that are not always taken in account in the structural design.
In the industry of precast concrete the most used cross section in columns is the square cross section. In
spite of the structural disadvantages compared with circular or similar cross section with fully symmetry,
the square section is preferred due to easiness to produce. The benefits for the dynamic performance of
concrete structures compared to steel structures is well known, but if we compare a typical circular (or
similar) steel cross section with a square concrete cross section the benefits may not be so evident. With
a square cross section the structure is not symmetry in all directions, this asymmetry can generate
aerodynamic effects that worsen the dynamic response and may be determinant on choosing whether the
concrete or steel structure. Therefore, a square cross section reinforced concrete column is studied for a
typical pole length. The aerodynamic and aeroelastic effects caused by the wind loads are evaluated for
this column and it is compared with a steel column of typical steel cross section.
3 Description of the precast concrete column

The square cross section is studied for the reinforced concrete column. Several square sizes are
analyzed and the optimal one is analyzed in detail. The column considered for this study is a 24m height
cantilevered frame with rigid fixity at the bottom. On top of high rise columns, it is always attached
equipment according to the structure purpose, like lighting mast, antennas, etc. In this case, no
Wind induced vibration and dynamic analysis on slender precast concrete poles - 2015
equipment attached is considered in order to study only the column response. Anyway, the column weight
per unit length is rather higher than the steel design. As a consequence, the mass that would be added
by the equipment make much less influence in the dynamic response for the reinforced concrete column
than for the steel one.
F(t)
24m
Figure 1 Cantilever frame subjected to

variable wind force perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis
Figure 2 Column cross sections. The sections

under study are square (A) and square hollow
core (B). It is considered constant cross section
to simplify the analysis.
4 Dynamic response analysis

The dynamic response is calculated by applying equivalent static actions. These actions are that ones
that produce the same displacement and stresses than the wind dynamic forces. The method used for
this purpose is the detailed method of Annex L of CNR DT 207/208 (1). Calculations are performed for
effects in the along-wind and cross-wind directions for each of the wind directions (Figure 3).
The structure is calculated for two wind directions, orthogonal to one face and the other direction is 45
skew to any face.
A)
B)
Figure 3 Wind direction considered.
The wind forces on the structure are considered as the integration of the peak velocity wind pressure
along the structure. Therefore the equivalent static actions (for the along-wind direction) will be calculated
with the equivalent static pressure given by the equation:
( )
( )
(Eq. 4-1)
where:
( )
( )
is the equivalent static along-wind peak wind pressure, function of the height z
is the peak wind pressure, function of height z
is the along wind dynamic factor
Aerodynamic, Dynamic and Aeroelasticity of Structures Facultad de Ingeniera UDELAR
Pg.2/23
The along wind dynamic factor
for slender structures is usually
dynamic behavior is negligible
, for rigid structures where the
, but it is usually considered equal to 1 as a good estimate.
The explanation of the factor
can be seen in reference (1), it is omitted in this report due to its
extension, only numerical results are shown.
4.1
Geometrical and material properties
Figure 4 Column cross section. The longitudinal steel reinforcement consist of 12,5mm prestress strands.
The section considered is a square section of prestress concrete with the following properties:
-a=500mm
square size
-cov=30mm
concrete cover
-As=1592mm2
prestress steel area
-Jgross=0,0052m4
gross inertia
-J=0,0062m4
homogenous inertia
-Jcr=0,0018m4
cracked inertia
-Fpinf=1894kN
prestress force at time t=infinite
-fck=40MPa
concrete compressive strength (standard cylinders 28 day)
-Ecm=30891MPa
concrete secant elastic modulus
-Ec=36397MPa
concrete tangent elastic modulus
-Es=200000MPa
prestress steel elastic modulus
-h=2500kg/m3
reinforced concrete density
-m=625kg/m
mass per unit length
These section properties have been selected for resist the limits state with the minimum cross section
area.
Pg.3/23
4.2
Dynamic factor calculation for along wind direction
4.2.1 Example 1
Calculation of dynamic along-wind factor with the following assumptions:
Concrete is not cracked, homogenous inertia J is considered for mode vibration response
Constant concrete tangent modulus of elasticity is considered, this assumption is reasonable

valid if concrete stress is under 0,4*fcm (average concrete compression strength)
- b
- h
- ze
0,50 m
24 m
14,4 m
- vm(ze)
- Iv(ze)
- Lv(ze)
- D
33,27 m/s
0,14
94,26
0,57 1/s
width of the structure

height of the structure
reference height
mean wind velocity at z=ze
turbulence length at z=ze
turbulence length scale at z=ze
fundamental along-wind frecuency
- D
- B
0,0050
0,85
damping ratio in the first along-wind vibration mode

background factor
- SD
0,09
factor of spectral content of longitudinal turbulence
- h
1,64
- b
0,03
- Rh
0,43
factor of partial coherence of longitudinal turbulence
- Rb
0,98
- RD
0,70
resonant response
- D
0,36
expected frecuency
- gD
3,46
peak factor
- GD
- cdD
2,05
1,043
gust factor
dynamic factor (also 1,043 if tangent modulus is considered
4.2.2 Example 2
Calculation of dynamic along-wind factor with the following assumptions:
Concrete is cracked, cracked inertia J is considered for mode vibration response
Constant concrete tangent modulus of elasticity is considered
- b
- h
- ze
- vm(ze)
- Iv(ze)
- Lv(ze)
- D
0,50 m
24 m
14,4 m
33,27 m/s
0,14
94,26
0,29 1/s

reference height
- D
- B
0,0050
0,85

background factor
- SD
0,13
- h
0,84
- b
0,02
Pg.4/23
- Rh
0,62
- Rb
0,99
- RD
0,73
resonant response
- D
0,19
expected frecuency
- gD
3,26
peak factor
- GD
- cdD
2,01
1,023
gust factor
dynamic factor
The example with the cracked section is only for setting the limit of the inertia which gives the extreme
dynamic factor; it is not the real dynamic factor. In fact, the inertia for constant cross section cantilevered
columns depends on the flexural moment due to the contribution of concrete between cracks. As the
flexural moment of the column is variable then the inertia varies along the column between the
homogenous inertia and the cracked inertia. As a result he dynamic factor for cracked section is a value
between the example 1 (non cracked) and example 2 (full cracked)
The value of dynamic factor varies from 1.023 To 1.043. It is interesting to remark that the inertia of the
square cross section uncracked do not change when the inertia axis are twisted any angle. This property
of square sections is very interesting because for non cracked sections the mechanical behavior is the
same in any angle. This means that vibration properties of the column do not change (see Eq. 4-2).
However interaction between column and wind does change the resonant factor R D. Thus the dynamic
factor changes with different wind angle of attack.
(Eq. 4-2)
For example 1 the results of the dynamic factor with the cross section twisted 45 are:
Example 1 twisted 45 (angle b=45)

- b
- h
- ze
- vm(ze)
- Iv(ze)
- Lv(ze)
- D
0,71 m
24 m
14,4 m
33,27 m/s
0,14
94,26
0,60 1/s

reference height
- D
- B
0,0050
0,85

background factor
- SD
0,09
- h
1,74
- b
0,05
- Rh
0,42
- Rb
0,97
- RD
0,59
resonant response
- D
0,34
expected frecuency
Pg.5/23
- gD
3,44
- GD
- cdD
1,98
1,006
peak factor
gust factor
dynamic factor
The dynamic factor is reduced when the section is twisted because the resonant response is reduced.
Figure 5 shows how is affected the dynamic factor by the angle of the wind. These results can be
generalized for any square cross section of non cracked reinforced concrete. For cracked concrete, the
section cracking moment is reduced when angle increases (from 0 to 45) and this reduces the equivalent
inertia of the section. As a result the structure may become more flexible and the dynamic factor may
increase. Hence, the structure behavior cannot be generalized as well as for non cracked sections.
CdD
Angle of attack vs cdD

1,05
1,04
1,04
1,03
1,03
1,02
1,02
1,01
1,01
1,00
Series1
10
20
30
40
Twisting angle ()
Figure 5 Plot of Dynamic factor cdD vs the wind angle of attack for the non-cracked studied column section 0,5mx0,5m
4.3
Peak wind pressure
Peak velocity wind pressure
( ), is calculated according to:

( )
( )
(Eq. 4-3)
The following values are adopted:

- vb
25,5 m/s
basic wind velocity coastal area according to UNIT(2)1
- vr
26,9 m/s
reference wind velocity
- Exp
exposure category
- kr
0,17
terrain factor
- z0
0,01 m
roughness length
- zmin
2 m
minimum height
- ct
topography coefficient
- ce(z)
exposure factor
Basic wind velocity is defined in UNIT with different exposure terrain and measuring time and return
period, to adapt to CNR-DT conversion should be made according to reference (11)
Pg.6/23
z (m)
ce(z)
qp (N/m2)
qpeq 0 (N/m2)
qpeq 45 (N/m2)
2,4
1,98
894,6
932,7
900,3
4,8
2,35
1063,7
1109,0
1070,5
7,2
2,58
1168,5
1218,2
1175,9
9,6
2,75
1245,4
1298,4
1253,3
12,0
2,89
1306,5
1362,1
1314,8
14,4
3,00
1357,5
1415,2
1366,1
16,8
3,10
1401,2
1460,8
1410,1
19,2
3,18
1439,6
1500,9
1448,8
21,6
3,26
1473,9
1536,6
1483,2
24,0
3,33
1504,8
1568,9
1514,4
Table 4-1 Values of peak velocity wind pressure and equivalent static peak velocity wind pressure
Values of peak velocity wind pressure do not depend on the section shape but the equivalent static
pressure does due to the dynamic factor (Eq. 4-1).
4.4
Global aerodynamic coefficients
The overall forces on the structures are obtained by multiplying the peak velocity wind pressure by the
aerodynamic coefficients. These coefficients include force, moment and friction global coefficients that
provide the global actions of the wind over the structure. The aerodynamic coefficients correspond to the
elongated members type (annex G10 of reference (1)) because the height is the structure is much larger
than the reference plan dimension (h>5b). The force and moment coefficients are given by the following
equations:
(Eq. 4-4)
(Eq. 4-5)
(Eq. 4-6)
where:
-
force and moment coefficients per unit length
slenderness factor
According to the edges, sharp or rounded, the force and moment coefficients per unit length can be
reduced by the factor
.
(Eq. 4-7)
(Eq. 4-8)
where:
-
corner radius
square section size
Pg.7/23
The coefficients are given in the following table for wind flow perpendicular to a face and diagonal. In the
case of diagonal flow, the force in the along-wind direction is given by the vectorial sum of component x
and y (see Figure 6), that is the same that define an along-wind coefficient Cfio=
sharp edge
rounded edge
flow
Cfxo
Cfyo
r sharp edge
r round edge
Cfxo
Cfyo
Cfxo
Cfyo
orthogonal
diagonal
2,1
1,55
0,3
1,55
1
1
0,90
0,97
2,1
1,55
0,3
1,55
1,89
1,50
0,3
1,50
Table 4-2 Aerodynamic coefficient per unit length. For the rounded edge it is considered r=0,02m as common value for
precast concrete columns
Fx
upwind
y
Fy
downwind
Fy
upwind
Fx
downwind
x
Figure 6 Wind flow diagonal to the section faces. The force in the along wind direction (i" vector) is the vectorial sum of
Fx and Fy.
The slenderness factor is given by effective slenderness from table G.XIX of CNR-DT with the
following assumptions:
-Sharp edge section, free flow at top. There is no effective slenderness formulation for rounded edge
sections so it is conservatively considered as sharp edge.
-For the case of diagonal flow it is considered the dimension l of the structure as the square diagonal,
not the square size.
Applying
(Eq. 4-4, the aerodynamic coefficients for along-wind direction are in the
following table, Cfi is the aerodynamic coefficient, and for perpendicular flow Cfi=Cfx:
sharp edge
round edge
flow
Cfi
Cfi
orthogonal
diagonal
92
65
0,94
0,90
1,98
1,98
1,78
1,92
aerodynamic
.
coefficient.
Table
4-3
Cfi,
For
the
diagonal
wind
flow
the
coefficient
is
calculated
Pg.8/23
by
4.5
Global forces
The equivalent static wind forces on the structure are given by the equation:
( )
( )
(Eq. 4-9)
The terms of Eq. 4-9 are obtained from Table 4-1 and Table 4-3. Results are shown on Table 4-4. The
results show that for a certain direction of flow the section round edges improve the aerodynamic
behavior, what is logical. But for a certain type of edge, the diagonal direction of flow increases and
reduces the aerodynamic forces for sharp and rounded edges respectively. For rounded edge sections,
the perpendicular flow gives about 5% less aerodynamic force than for diagonal force. This result may be
explained by the reduction factor r (Eq. 4-7) for sharp edges and (Eq. 4-8) for rounded edges. This factor
provides stronger reduction for perpendicular flow than for diagonal flow. On the practice the reduction
factor r for rounded edge sections should be verified by wind tunnel test.
Equivalent static force per unit length
Perpendicular flow
Diagonal flow
sharp edge
round edge
sharp edge
round edge
z (m)
2,4
4,8
7,2
9,6
12,0
14,4
16,8
19,2
21,6
24,0
f (N/m)
922
1096
1204
1283
1346
1399
1444
1483
1518
1550
f (N/m)
829
986
1083
1155
1211
1259
1299
1335
1367
1395
f (N/m)
892
1060
1164
1241
1302
1353
1396
1435
1469
1500
f (N/m)
865
1028
1129
1204
1263
1312
1354
1392
1425
1455
Table 4-4 Equivalent static force in the along wind direction
4.6
Structural design
Structural verification has been made for sharp edge sections according to factored loads of AASHTO
specification for luminaries support structures (3) where:
for any load
(Eq. 4-10)
To calculate the design flexural moment it is necessary to initiate an iterative process to get the second
order efforts. The process is described next, this process can be made by FEM software or by excel
spreadsheets.
1. Load the structure with the values forces of Table 4-4 multiplied by the load factor
2. Perform a P- analysis to get the second order flexural moment. This step is for accounting for
geometric non linear behavior.
3. With the moment at each column section, find the equivalent flexural stiffness and replace it at
each section. This step is for accounting for material non linear behavior.
Pg.9/23
4. Repeat step 2 and 3 with the new stiffness until flexural moment at the base converges.
The following diagrams show the flexural stiffness reduction vs. the flexural moment for the section
studied for a prestress force of 1894kN:
P50X50 Momento - Rigidez secante
EI / EcIb
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mk [kNm]
0.862
0.704
0.522
0.44
0.389
0.326
0.279
0.243
0.863
0.666
0.507
0.432
0.378
0.319
0.273
0.873
0.633
0.493
0.424
0.368
0.311
0.267
0.87
0.604
0.481
0.417
0.359
0.304
0.261
0.849
0.579
0.469
0.41
0.35
0.297
0.256
0.799
0.558
0.459
0.403
0.342
0.291
0.251
0.749
0.539
0.449
0.397
0.334
0.284
0.246
EcIb [kNm]= 1.663E5
Figure 7 Flexural stiffness vs flexural moment for moment according to axis perpendicular to column face
EI / EcIb
P50X50ESV Momento - Rigidez secante

0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0
100
200
300
400
500
Mk [kNm]
0.862
0.806
0.633
0.534
0.472
0.428
0.384
0.349
0.862
0.776
0.615
0.524
0.465
0.421
0.379
0.869
0.747
0.599
0.514
0.458
0.414
0.374
0.872
0.72
0.584
0.505
0.452
0.408
0.369
0.871
0.695
0.57
0.496
0.446
0.402
0.363
0.859
0.672
0.558
0.488
0.44
0.396
0.357
0.835
0.652
0.546
0.48
0.434
0.39
0.351
EcIb [kNm]= 1.662E5
Figure 8 - Flexural stiffness vs flexural moment for moment according to axis 45 skew to a column face
Applying the iterative procedure mentioned, the second order flexural moment for diagonal and
perpendicular wind flow is on next table:
Pg.10/23
z(m)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Equivalent static moment per unit length

Perpendicular flow
Diagonal flow
M (kNm)
IE/IgE
M (kNm)
IE/IgE
588
0,56
570
0,51
548
0,58
531
0,56
508
0,61
492
0,60
468
0,66
454
0,64
429
0,70
416
0,69
390
0,75
379
0,75
353
0,81
343
0,80
317
0,89
308
0,87
283
1,00
274
0,93
250
1,07
243
1,00
219
1,13
213
1,08
190
1,16
184
1,12
162
1,16
158
1,15
137
1,17
133
1,16
114
1,17
110
1,17
92
1,15
90
1,16
73
1,15
71
1,16
56
1,15
55
1,15
42
1,15
40
1,15
29
1,15
28
1,15
19
1,15
18
1,15
10
1,15
10
1,15
5
1,15
5
1,15
1
1,15
1
1,15
0
1,15
0
1,15
Table 4-5 Flexural moment for perpendicular and diagonal wind flow. IE is the real flexural stiffness, IgE is the gross
inertia flexural stiffness. Values of IE/IgE higher than 1 are due to the IhE (homogenous inertia flexural stiffness) is higher
than gross stiffness for a range of moment-axial force.
Stiffness reduction for cracked conrcrete

z(m)
23
20
18
15
13
Perpendicular flow
10
Diagonal flow
5
3
0
0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00 1,10 1,20 1,30
IE/IgE
Figure 9 Plot inertia reduction vs column height. The values higher than 1 are explained because in the flexural stiffness
IgE it is not considered the prestress reinforcement. Note that column in the 45 to face direction is less stiff than in the
perpendicular to face direction, this has direct consequences on structural design where square and rectangular section
are usually calculated only in the perpendicular to face directions.
Pg.11/23
Moment (kNm) axis perpendicular to wind flow

z(m)
20
15
Diagonal flow
10
Perpendicular flow
5
M(kNm)
0
0
150
300
450
600
Figure 10 Flexural moment for both wind directions. In this diagram it is considered the different stiffness of the column
according to the wind direction
The flexural moment verification at the base has been made with the software Prontuario informtico del
hormign armado.
Figure 11 Flexural moment verification for perpendicular to face wind direction. CSCM is the strength ratio, CSCM must
be >1, 16 12,7mm prestressing strands are represented by the circles around the perimeter.
Pg.12/23
Figure 12 - Flexural moment verification for diagonal to face wind direction. The moment Mxd and Myd are the vectorial
components of flexural moment at the base (Md/1,41 for diamond section 570/1,41=403)
Results show that the diagonal direction is the critical design direction for this problem. The strength ratio
is 1,15 and 1,04 for perpendicular and diagonal wind flow direction respectively despite the flexural base
moment is hardly higher (588kNm and 570kNm) for perpendicular than for diagonal wind direction. This
finding is very interesting because in practice this verification is not usually performed by structural
analysis, especially for rectangular plan industrial building with cantilevered type columns, in which wind
actions are calculated only in the principal axes directions. It is also interesting to remark that for this
example, the dynamic effects of wind actions increases between 0,6% and 4,3% the flexural moment,
and the non-linearities of geometric and material increases 9%.These proportions obviously can vary with
changing the problem geometry.
5 Across wind response

For across wind forces caused by natural wind gusts, the geometry is out of range of the directives given
by annex M of CNR-DT. Using these equations as an exercise, the efforts on the structure by acrosswind actions are around 30% less than for effort generated by wind along actions, therefore is not
considered a critical design factor for this example. Other important cross wind oscillation are described
on next.
Pg.13/23
6 Vortex shedding
Vortex induced vibration on structures of square cross sections is a very complex problem that involve
many variables. The main parameter that defines the vortex shedding model to apply is the wind angle of
attack. This behavior is fully described by Nemes, et al. (2012)(4) report where shows revealing test
results. In that report there is a complete literature review about this topic. Cui, et al. (2015) (5) confirmed
those experimental results with a numerical study. For diagonal wind flow direction (diamond section,
angle of attack=45) the vortex shedding behavior is similar to the circular section. This behavior can be
extended to a wind angle of attack of 22,5. For perpendicular wind flow section (square section, angle of
attack=0) the prevailing induced vibration is described by galloping. This behavior can be extended to a
wind angle of attack of 7,5. Between 7,5 and 22,5 wind angle of attack, the induced vibration oscillation
are a non linear combination of vortex shedding and galloping. At the moment there is no analytical model
that describe induced vibration within this range of angles but experimental tests show that vibration
amplitudes exceeds the resulting from the galloping and vortex shedding independently. This means that
the critical factor to design a cross section structure is not the vortex shedding vibration but a combination
of galloping and vortex shedding.
When evaluating the effects of vortex shedding for diamond sections, an important factor to account for is
the sharpness of the edges. For sections with rounded edges of r>0,15D, where r is the corner radius
and D the square side, the vortex shedding response is close to the circular section (6). On the other
hand, when the corners are sharp (r=0), the response is much more variable. Seven different flow
regimes can be identified and the high amplitude regime that is synchronized to a frequency near the
natural structural frequency decreases significantly (6).
Another important difference between circular and diamond sharp edge sections is that diamond sections
show a significant near constant amplitude cross-wind oscillation with velocities over the critical vortex
shedding velocity
velocities over
. This behavior is not present on circular sections, where cross-wind oscillations for
are negligible. Of course this effect has direct influence on the fatigue design.
The description and approach to this problem is very extensive and it is out of the scope of this work. Due
to this, Vortex shedding problem is studied in this work only for sharp edge cross section with diagonal
wind flow direction according to CNR-DT (1) basis. An advantage of working with sharp edge sections is
that Reynolds number influence is neglected in the model solution. With these assumptions, method
specified on CNR-DT can be used to find a conservative displacement on diamond sections subjected to
vortex shedding. Then it is expected that the maximum displacement for different angle of attack
(between 22,5 and 45) will be lower than for 45 direction but around the same order, in this case
properly engineering judgment must be done before further studies are performed. This method cannot
be applied to evaluate fatigue design due to experimental tests (6) that shows strong not predicted
vibration after critical velocity, this behavior is not accounted in vortex shedding calculation for diamond
sections.
The vortex shedding frequency is given by the Strouhal law:

Pg.14/23
(Eq. 6-1)
where:
Strouhal number, St=0,213 (6) for diamond section2
mean wind velocity
reference dimension of the cross section
Thus the critical velocity
of vortex shedding in the i th mode is defined as:
Vortex shedding shall be studied when the critical velocities below the mean velocity
evaluated at the
height where critical velocity occurs, for a return period TR equal to 10 times the reference return period.
For diagonal directions the critical velocity
is below
( ) for the 1st ,2nd and 3rd mode:
Diagonal wind direction,

b=0,71m
mode
I
II
III
nL,I (1/s)
0,57
3,31
9,23
vcr,I (m/s)
1,9
11,0
30,6
zref (m)
24
11
7
vm,l
(m/s)
43,0
38,7
36,2
Table 6-1 - nLi is the mode vibration frecuency, vcr,I vortex shedding critical velocity, zref reference height of vcr,I, vm,l, mean
wind velocity at reference height
The vortex shedding risk influence is evaluated through the Scruton number:
where:
-
equivalent mass per unit length in the i-th mode
critical structural damping in the i-th mode
air density (1,25kg/m3 recommended value)
cross-section reference dimension
Scruton number for diamond section

mode
I, II, III
mei (kg/m)
625
i
0,005
Sci
63
According to reference (4) St=0,167 for diamond section. There are multiple vortex shedding
frequencies for square sections depending on problem conditions (6). Values of (6) have been adopted
for simplicity; this value is in accordance with Roshko law (12). Vortex shedding frecuency must be
experimentally tested for assessing structures of these characteristics.
Pg.15/23
The smaller the Scruton number the greater the response. The structural damping has been selected
according to reference (1) for the 1st and 2nd mode.
For Scruton number below 30, it is recommended to check the vortex shedding effects. In this example,
Sci number is enough higher and there is no risk of significantly vortex shedding effects. However, brief
checks are performed for the first mode of vibration as an exercise following method of annex O.4 of (1).
Scruton number depends linearly on the structural damping, which can vary with the mode of vibration
and the amplitude oscillation. On table 3.1 from reference (7) and reference (8), there is an experimental
survey of structural damping of existing steel high masts. This study found that the 2nd mode vibration
structural damping is around one third of the 1st mode structural damping. With this structural damping the
Scruton number would decrease 3 times Sci=63/3=21 for the 2 nd mode of vibration and would be under
the Sci=30 threshold recommended by bibliography. Thus, is strongly recommended to adopt well
approximated data of structural damping for the main modes of vibration. According to 4.1 of reference
(7) the vortex induced vibration on high mast lighting poles occurs on the 2nd and 3rd vibration mode, and
notes the importance of evaluating the structural damping ratio carefully.
On next it is shown the results for diamond section excited by vortex shedding following annex O.4 and
same criteria of excersice 4.9.4 of same reference (1):
6.1
Peak deflection
Peak deflection is calculated using the spectral method. This method is only valid for cantilevered
structures oscillating in the 1st mode of vibration. If 2nd mode is verified, the harmonic method shall be
used. As there is no information about some parameters related to diamond sections, calculations are
made assuming two approaches: like-circular section parameters and like square-section parameters.
The main missing parameter for diamond section is the maximum value of aerodynamic damping
parameter Kamax. The modification of this factor has very strong influence on final results; therefore it is
worth to study its value.
Peak deflection according to like-circular section parameters:

With Kamax=0,5
- gL
4,06
- L
- Ka
0,0008 m
0,5
CI
Kamax
c1
c2
- aL
1
0,5
-0,72
1,83E-06
0,4
peak deflection factor

standard deviation of deflection
dimensionless damping parameter
turbulence factor
maximum value of aerodynamic damping parameter 3
normalized limiting amplitude
Value of this parameter for square section is Kamax=6, for circular section values of Kamax varies from 0,5
to 2. There are not Kamax values for diamond section. The value adopted has strong influence on final
results. Kamax values were extracted from CNR-DT and Eurocode 1
Pg.16/23
- Cc
dimensionless parameter function of the shape 4

peak deflection value
0,02
- ypL,1
0,0032 m
With Kamax= 2
- gL
3,74
- L
- Ka
0,0010 m
2
CI
Kamax
c1
c2

turbulence factor
1
2
-0,12
4,58E-07
- aL
- Cc
maximum value of aerodynamic damping parameter
0,4
0,02
- ypL,1
dimensionless parameter function of the shape

0,0037 m
For circular sections, the modification of Kamax function of the Reynolds number has no significant
variation. Peak deflection value varies from 0,0043m to 0,0048m.
Peak deflection according to like-square section parameters:

With Kamax=6
- gL
1,83
- L
- Ka
0,1155 m
6
CI
Kamax
c1
c2

turbulence factor
1
6
0,013333
1,53E-07
- aL
- Cc
maximum value of aerodynamic damping parameter
0,4
0,02
- ypL,1
dimensionless parameter function of the shape

0,2114 m
Maximum peak deflection

ypL,1 (m)0,250
0,200
0,150
0,100
0,050
0,000
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
Kamax
Figure 13 Plot of maximum peak deflection function of maximum value of aerodynamic damping parameter
Value of this parameter for square section is Cc=0,04 and Cc=0,02 for circular section. This difference
has negligible effects on final results.
Pg.17/23
6.2
Equivalent static load
The equivalent load generated by vortex shedding vibration is proportional to the peak deflection (Eq. 6-2)
Therefore the same differences observed in the peak deflection are present in the results of equivalent
load:
( )
( )(
( )
(Eq. 6-2)
Equivalent static load according to like-circular section parameters:

With Kamax=0,5
z (m)
FL,i(N/m)
2,4
0,032
0,82
4,8
0,089
2,32
20
7,2
0,164
4,27
61
M (Nm)
9,6
0,253
6,57
132
12,0
0,354
9,18
238
14,4
0,465
12,07
382
16,8
0,586
15,21
569
19,2
0,716
18,58
803
21,6
0,854
22,17
1086
24,0
1,000
25,97
1421
Total (Nm)
4716
With Kamax=2
z (m)
FL,i(N/m)
2,4
0,032
0,93
4,8
0,089
2,62
23
7,2
0,164
4,81
69
9,6
0,253
7,41
149
12,0
0,354
10,35
268
14,4
0,465
13,61
431
16,8
0,586
17,15
642
19,2
0,716
20,95
905
21,6
0,854
25,00
1224
24,0
1,000
29,28
1602
Total
(Nm)
M (Nm)
5316
Equivalent static load according to like-square section parameters:

With Kamax=6
z (m)
2,4
4,8
7,2
1
0,032
0,089
0,164
FL,i(N/m)
53,56
151,48
278,29
M (Nm)
154
1309
4007
Pg.18/23
9,6
0,253
428,46
8638
12,0
0,354
598,79
15521
14,4
0,465
787,14
24936
16,8
0,586
991,91
37137
19,2
0,716
1211,88
52353
21,6
0,854
1446,06
70799
24,0
1,000
1693,65
92676
Total (Nm)
307531
The results show a variation of moment at the base of the column from 4,7-5,3kNm (circular section) to
30,7kNm (square section). Note that the last moment value (30kNm) is close to the moment generated by
along-wind static equivalent forces (Md/1,3=39kNm). If diamond section vortex shedding is ruled by the
square sections parameters this factor would be the critical for design, and this happens for wind
velocities close to the critical velocity of 1,9m/s. This result seems to be excessive for the problem
geometry; tests results shown in reference (4) are coherent with this comment. Hence the behavior of the
structure for the diamond section wind flow would approach to the circular section response and this
should be the path to follow in the formulation of the solution to vortex shedding vibration on diamond
sections. Actually, structural codes do not provide reliable methods for assessing vortex shedding in this
kind of structures, and in some cases these ones can lead to very not conservative results (9) with
dangerous consequences. Recent study of Nemes, et al, (2012) put on evidence the misleading codes
methods to assessment square section structures on vortex induced vibration and opens a broad
important field of study on the matter.
7 Galloping
Galloping is an aeroelastic instability problem that may arise when the total damping (structural and
aerodynamic) becomes zero or negative. The galloping oscillation, as it was described in part 6, can
appear on perpendicular wind flow (square section, angle of attack=0) and with an angle of up to 7,5.
7.1
Critical galloping velocity
The critical galloping velocity is giving by the following equation:

(Eq. 7-1)
where:
=35
- aG
galloping instability factor for square section.

3
- nL,I (1/s)
- bref
- Sci
0,57
0,50 m
126
- vG,i
23,9 m/s <
=43,0
Value recommended by G. Solari for square sections
Pg.19/23
The galloping critical velocity is below the mean velocity for the reference height of 24m (column tip) for a
return period of 500 years. Therefore the structure is susceptible for collapse for wind velocities over the
galloping critical velocity. Wind tunnel test must be made to asses this structure for galloping.
Actions to reduce the galloping instability are related to increase Scruton number. This can be done by
increasing square section size or structural damping. Increase the reference size to bref=0,7m is enough
for this case. The problem can also be solved by increasing the structural damping by 80%, this value
may be reached by finding the real structural damping by full scale tests or adding a damping device.
Another approach is approximate the section to a circular section by rounding the corners according to (6)
and (10), with a corner radius of 0,09m (0,15xD) would be enough to mitigate the problem; this value
must be also verified by wind tunnel test. A creative alternative to mitigate galloping can be found in
reference (10), where it can be appreciated the aerodynamic and aeroelastic efficiency of different
column shapes.
8 Steel pole comparisson

The comparison with the prestress reinforced concrete column is made with a real example a lighting pole
structure extracted from Appendix A of reference (7). Structural verification is available at mentioned
reference.
Figure 14 Steel column
The steel column is a 24m height that consist of a tapered prismatic tube with circular base plate. The
shape of the tube is a regular polygon with 16 sides. The structure does not have vibration mitigating
devices. The following table shows a comparative guidance with indicative values.
Steel column
Prestress concrete column
-height = 24m
-height = 24m
-column diameter at base = 457mm
-column diameter at base = 500mm
Pg.20/23
-column diameter at top = 280mm
-column diameter at top = 500mm
-tube thickness = 6mm
n/a
-column weight = 1296kg
-column weigth = 15000kg
-structural steel = 1296kg
n/a
n/a
-concrete volume = 6,0m3
n/a
-prestress reinforcement = 299kg
n/a
-steel reinforcement = 150kg

6
-Approx direct construction cost = 5700usd
-Approx direct construction cost = 2400usd
9 Conclussions
Wind forces structural calculation for high mast lighting tower made with constant square section involves
a complex number of verifications that some of them have not been investigated or developed yet.
There is well documented information for assess these structures for along wind forces. For these forces
constant prestress concrete square column can have competitive design versus the steel tapered circular
cross section. The column studied on this report can be significantly improved in its performance with
simple modification that is common in the precast concrete industry, ie. making chamfers or rounded
edges reduces significantly the drag coefficients (6).
For across wind effects, there are no reliable structural standard specifications for design and asses the
vortex induced vibration (VIV). There are plenty of studies for VIV for fixed square sections that possibly
misleaded the information gathered by structural standards. For free movement square section, what is
our interest in the aeroelastic phenomena, the investigation done, Nemes et al. (2012) and Cui et al.
(2015) is very recent. There is much investigation ahead to arrive to a safe and accurate VIV design
method for square sections.
At the moment, with the work of Nemes, it can be concluded that the peak forces generated by peak
displacement on resonant VIV structures of diamond sections can be conservative estimated with the
forces for circular section, whereas for angles of attack between 7,5 and 22,5 this estimation is under
conservative because the interaction of galloping generates higher oscillation. It is not proved that the VIV
and galloping at this range angle are decoupled effects. In this example, the effect of galloping is not
negligible and must be mitigated or properly assessed by methods mentioned previously. For
perpendicular to face wind flow (square section, wind angle of attack of 0 to 7,5) there is no VIV (4), this
finding is surprising because in many important structural codes there are specification and parameter to
assess VIV. For square sections (perpendicular), the cross section induced vibration is ruled only by
galloping. The estimation of VIV peak deflections mentioned before can be good estimate but an
important factor that is not contemplated is the fatigue design. For this variable, the diamond sections
show different VIV oscillation than circular sections for wind velocities over vortex shedding critical
velocity Vcr,i. The diamond section keep a significant constant amplitude oscillation for velocities higher
6
Direct cost excludes the cost of piece transport, erection, foundation, maintenance, lifetime cost and
indirect costs
Pg.21/23
than Vcr,i. This means that for much wider range of velocities than for circular sections, the diamond
section structure will be significantly oscillating and therefore circular section approach cannot be
considered for fatigue design. For this reason, it is important to make further studies about fatigue design,
in spite of prestress concrete has good fatigue performance it seems to be weakest part of square section
slender structures.
10 Bibliography
1. Advisory Committee on Technical Recommendations for Construction. Guide for the assessment
of wind actions and effects on structures. Roma : NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF ITALY, 2010.
Vol. 207/2008.
2. UNIT. UNIT 50-84 "Accin del viento sobre construcciones. s.l. : UNIT, 1984.
3. AASHTO. Standard specification for structural support for highway sign-luminaries-traffic signals 5th
edition. 2009.
4. The interaction between flow-induced vibration mechanisms of a square cylinder with varying angles of
attack. Nemes, Zhao, Lo Jacono, Sheridan. s.l. : Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2012, Vol. 710. ISSN
0022-1120.
5. Cui, Zhao, Teng, Cheng. Two-dimensional numerical study of vortex-induced vibration and galloping
of square and rectangular cylinders in steady flow. s.l. : Ocean engineering - Elsevier, 2015.
6. Vortex-induced vibrations of a diamond cross-section:Sensitivity to corner sharpness. Justin
S.Leontini, MarkC.Thompson. Melbourne : Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2013, Vol. 39.
7. NCHRP. Fatigue Loading and Design methodology for high mast ligthing tower-report 718.
Washington : AASHTO, 2012.
8. R., Hodgson C. Connors. Field Instrumentation, Testing, and Long-Term Monitoring of High-Mast
Lighting Towers in the State of Iowa. Iowa : s.n., 2006.
9. VIVgalloping instability of rectangular cylinders: Review and new experiments. Mannini, Marra,
Bartoli. 132, s.l. : Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2014.
10. Experimental investigation on the aerodynamic behavior of square cylinders with rounded corners.
L.Carassale, A.Freda, M. Marre. Genova : Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2013, Vol. 44.
11. Brncusi Endless Column: A Masterpiece of Art and Engineering. Solari, Giovanni. 3, Genova :
International Journal of High-Rise Buildings, 2013, Vol. 2.
12. Eurocode. UNE EN 1991-1-4:2005: Actions on structures Wind actions. s.l. : UNE, 2005.
13. P., Paez. Accin del viento sobre edificios de hormign armado - Master thesis. Montevideo,
Uruguay : UDELAR, 2014.
14. Roshko, A. On the drag and shedding frequency of two-dimensional bluff bodies. s.l. : US
Government Printing O4ce, 1993. Technical Report TN 3169.
Pg.22/23
11 ndex
1
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1
Description of the precast concrete column ....................................................................................... 1
Dynamic response analysis ................................................................................................................ 2

4.1
Geometrical and material properties .............................................................................................. 3
4.2
Dynamic factor calculation for along wind direction ....................................................................... 4

4.2.1
Example 1 ......................................................................................................................... 4
4.2.2
Example 2 ......................................................................................................................... 4
4.3
Peak wind pressure........................................................................................................................ 6
4.4
Global aerodynamic coefficients .................................................................................................... 7
4.5
Global forces .................................................................................................................................. 9
4.6
Structural design ............................................................................................................................ 9
Across wind response ...................................................................................................................... 13
Vortex shedding ............................................................................................................................... 14

6.1
Peak deflection ............................................................................................................................ 16
6.2
Equivalent static load ................................................................................................................... 18
Galloping .......................................................................................................................................... 19
7.1
Critical galloping velocity .............................................................................................................. 19
Steel pole comparisson .................................................................................................................... 20
Conclussions .................................................................................................................................... 21
10
Bibliography...................................................................................................................................... 22
11
ndex ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Pg.23/23

Wind Induced Vibration and Dynamic Response On Concrete Column

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wind Induced Vibration and Dynamic Response On Concrete Column

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wind induced vibration and dynamic response

analysis on slender precast concrete poles

3 Description of the precast concrete column

Figure 1 Cantilever frame subjected to

Figure 2 Column cross sections. The sections

4 Dynamic response analysis

Figure 3 Wind direction considered.

Aerodynamic, Dynamic and Aeroelasticity of Structures Facultad de Ingeniera UDELAR

The along wind dynamic factor

for slender structures is usually

dynamic behavior is negligible

, for rigid structures where the

, but it is usually considered equal to 1 as a good estimate.

The explanation of the factor

can be seen in reference (1), it is omitted in this report due to its

extension, only numerical results are shown.

Geometrical and material properties

prestress steel area

prestress force at time t=infinite

concrete compressive strength (standard cylinders 28 day)

concrete secant elastic modulus

concrete tangent elastic modulus

prestress steel elastic modulus

reinforced concrete density

mass per unit length

Aerodynamic, Dynamic and Aeroelasticity of Structures Facultad de Ingeniera UDELAR

Dynamic factor calculation for along wind direction

Constant concrete tangent modulus of elasticity is considered, this assumption is reasonable

width of the structure

damping ratio in the first along-wind vibration mode

factor of spectral content of longitudinal turbulence

factor of partial coherence of longitudinal turbulence

factor of partial coherence of longitudinal turbulence

Concrete is cracked, cracked inertia J is considered for mode vibration response

Constant concrete tangent modulus of elasticity is considered

width of the structure

damping ratio in the first along-wind vibration mode

factor of spectral content of longitudinal turbulence

Aerodynamic, Dynamic and Aeroelasticity of Structures Facultad de Ingeniera UDELAR

factor of partial coherence of longitudinal turbulence

factor of partial coherence of longitudinal turbulence

Example 1 twisted 45 (angle b=45)

width of the structure

damping ratio in the first along-wind vibration mode

factor of spectral content of longitudinal turbulence

factor of partial coherence of longitudinal turbulence

factor of partial coherence of longitudinal turbulence

Aerodynamic, Dynamic and Aeroelasticity of Structures Facultad de Ingeniera UDELAR

Angle of attack vs cdD

Peak wind pressure

Peak velocity wind pressure

( ), is calculated according to:

The following values are adopted:

basic wind velocity coastal area according to UNIT(2)1

reference wind velocity

Global aerodynamic coefficients

force and moment coefficients per unit length

square section size

Aerodynamic, Dynamic and Aeroelasticity of Structures Facultad de Ingeniera UDELAR

Aerodynamic, Dynamic and Aeroelasticity of Structures Facultad de Ingeniera UDELAR

Table 4-4 Equivalent static force in the along wind direction

for any load

EcIb [kNm]= 1.663E5