This document compares the methods for estimating wind loads on tall buildings according to the Russian code (SNiP) and the Nigerian code (NSCP I). Both codes divide their countries into zones based on wind speed and account for factors like building height and shape. However, SNiP also considers wind pulsations while NSCP I does not. Static analysis of a 10-story building found its drift and moments were higher under NSCP I, likely due to NSCP I's uniform wind pressure distribution. While NSCP I may be conservative, it could lead to overdesign if factors like pulsations are not defined, especially for tall structures. The next part will investigate dynamic behavior differences between the codes.
This document compares the methods for estimating wind loads on tall buildings according to the Russian code (SNiP) and the Nigerian code (NSCP I). Both codes divide their countries into zones based on wind speed and account for factors like building height and shape. However, SNiP also considers wind pulsations while NSCP I does not. Static analysis of a 10-story building found its drift and moments were higher under NSCP I, likely due to NSCP I's uniform wind pressure distribution. While NSCP I may be conservative, it could lead to overdesign if factors like pulsations are not defined, especially for tall structures. The next part will investigate dynamic behavior differences between the codes.
This document compares the methods for estimating wind loads on tall buildings according to the Russian code (SNiP) and the Nigerian code (NSCP I). Both codes divide their countries into zones based on wind speed and account for factors like building height and shape. However, SNiP also considers wind pulsations while NSCP I does not. Static analysis of a 10-story building found its drift and moments were higher under NSCP I, likely due to NSCP I's uniform wind pressure distribution. While NSCP I may be conservative, it could lead to overdesign if factors like pulsations are not defined, especially for tall structures. The next part will investigate dynamic behavior differences between the codes.
This document compares the methods for estimating wind loads on tall buildings according to the Russian code (SNiP) and the Nigerian code (NSCP I). Both codes divide their countries into zones based on wind speed and account for factors like building height and shape. However, SNiP also considers wind pulsations while NSCP I does not. Static analysis of a 10-story building found its drift and moments were higher under NSCP I, likely due to NSCP I's uniform wind pressure distribution. While NSCP I may be conservative, it could lead to overdesign if factors like pulsations are not defined, especially for tall structures. The next part will investigate dynamic behavior differences between the codes.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 6
ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (BUILDING AND HOUSING) VOL. 7, NO.
3 (2006) PAGES 233-238
WIND LOAD ESTIMATION ON TALL BUILDING PART I: COMPARISON OF RUSSIAN AND NIGERIAN CODES OF PRACTICE S.M. Auta St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Department of Structural Mechanics, 2nd Krasnoarmeiskaja Street, 4, 190005 St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
ABSTRACT This paper presents a comparison study of Russian and Nigerian standards and codes of practice on wind load estimation for tall buildings. Despite the similarity of the philosophy on which the codes were developed some sizable scatter exist among the wind loading estimation by the codes under similar wind flow conditions and location. Hence the paper seeks to present this scatter as regards static behaviour of a 10-storey building. It is to be noted that the scatter in the predicted wind load arises primarily from the variations in wind field factors and their values recommended in both codes.
Keyword: Codes and standards, static behaviour, wind load, comparison, deflection, tall building 1. INTRODUCTION Every nation has either developed or in the process of developing its own codes of practice because of its environmental factors peculiar to it among others. In this wise Nigeria and Russia have theirs namely NSCP I [1] and SNiP [2] respectively. Codes have generally been written since 1970 [3] and a lot of researches are still on, in order to perfect these codes as deeper understanding grows about the response of structures to wind load. Some of these researches that have been carried out in this area of comparison, have been made limited to most international codes and standards which include works listed in [4 7]. Recommendations from these studies are being adopted by major international codes and standards [6], in the bid to unify their application globally. With this rising trend for the international codes and standards, some of the national codes are becoming unpopular. NSCP I has been written since 1973 and undergoing perfection, but cannot attain this in isolation except compared with other existing national codes and standards. Hence in this study SNiP is chosen for this comparison study.
SNiP recommends that wind load on tall buildings shall be estimated as the sum total of average and pulsation excitations. Procedure of wind load calculation is outlined below. Basic wind pressure map and zoning: Wind pressure on the entire territory of the Russian federation is distributed into 8 zones (I, Ia, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII) and have 3 exposures A, B and C, where A open country with no obstruction; B - township territory with obstruction more than 10 meter height; C large cities territory with obstructions more than 25 meter height. Here the nominal wind pressure is already deduced and therefore, for any given location, is obtained directly from the Table given for all the zones (I, Ia VII) from the map. These values are obtainable from Tables 5, 6 and 7 of the Code. Wind pressure coefficient. Application of pressure coefficients and others like shape factor, height factor, dynamic coefficient to the nominal wind pressure proceeds to obtain design wind load. Design wind load. The design wind load is obtained from Eq. (1) through Eqs. (2 and 3) as shown below: w= wc + wp, wc=w0.k.c, wp=1.4wph(z/h), (1) (2) (3)
where wc is the average wind pressure, wp wind pressure due to pulsation; w0 nominal wind pressure; wph nominal pulsation wind pressure at the top height (h) of the building; k height factor; dynamic coefficient; z height at which pulsation wind pressure is being determined.
3. NIGERIAN STANDARD CODE OF PRACTICE (NSCP I)
In NSCP I wind load on tall buildings are estimated as average excitation alone. But the pressure coefficients, shape factor and uniform distribution of the wind pressure along the vertical surfaces of the building recommended by NSCP I, even though differ from that of SNiP seem to compensate for the differences. Procedure of wind load calculation is outlined below. Basic wind pressure map and zoning: The entire territory is subdivided into 3 zones (I 160 km from the coast; II160-480 km inland; II more than 480 km inland) according to their distances from the sea coast and have 2 basic exposures (A open country; and B built up areas). Unlike in SNiP, for any given location the basic (nominal) wind speed is first obtained directly from the Table according to exposure and subsequently, the nominal wind pressure from Table 4 and 5 of the Code respectively. Wind pressure coefficient: For separate standing vertical surfaces of a tall buildings, pressure coefficient ce= 0.67 and 0.33 is recommended for windward and leeward faces
WIND LOAD ESTIMATION ON TALL BUILDING ...
235
respectively. Design wind load: Design wind load from NSCP I can be calculated from Eq. (4) below: P=fs.q0.ce, (4)
where q0 is the nominal wind pressure; v0 is the nominal wind velocity; fs is the shape factor obtainable from Table 6 of the code; ce is the pressure coefficient.
4. STATIC BEHAVIOUR OF A 10-STOREY BUILDING
To demonstrate the static behaviour of a tall building and also account for the differences between NSCP I and SNiP, an example of an existing building is employed. A 10-storey reinforced concrete framed building [8], which is considerably tall enough for this study. The building consists of rigid moment resisting frames spaced at 4.5m along the length of the building with uniform cross-sectional area and constant stiffness for both the girders and the struts.
3.3x10 = 33.0m
6.0m
6.0m
Figure 1. The 10-storey analytic frame model of a building.
The analytic frame is figured out in figure 1. Procedure of the computations is according to both codes as outlined previous paragraphs under both codes and summary of input data recommended by both codes for vertical structures such as the 10-storey building for the case study are presented in Table 1. The wind load at the nodes of the frame, are presented in Table 2. For this static analysis, a structural analysis software popularly known as Lira was used. However, it is to be noted that dead weight of the structure was not taken into account since the analysis is assumed for this study to be linear. The result of the analysis is presented in Table 3.
236
S.M. Auta
Table 1. Input data SNiP Wind zone, exposure, Final wind Coefficients nominal wind pressure load and factors and speed NSCP I Zone I (equivalent zone); A open country with no obstruction, near sea bank; *v0=31 m/s (Table 4); q0=1.125 kN/m2 (Table 5). *v0=31m/s2 is the only value recommended within under which v0SNiP=22.18 m/s2 fall with the same exposure A (Table 4). fs=1 (table 6); ce=0.67, -0.33; sign indicates windward and leeward sides of the building
Zone II; A open country with no obstruction, near sea bank; w0=0.30 kN/m2 (table 5); v0=22.18 m/s; c=0.8, -0.6; wph=0.36m/s2; k, vary in value with height z along the height of the building, h.
Final wind load F is obtained from the expression F=A.w, where A is the surface area=14.85m2; w or P final design wind pressure from Eqs. (1) and (4) for either codes applied appropriately.
Table 3. Result of the static calculations Static behaviour of the frame SNiP Drift, max, (mm) Drift limit, lim, (mm) Maximum bending moment, Mmax, (kN.m) Minimum shear force, Qmin, (kN) 89.97 50.59 24.0 NSCP I 28.0 66.0 125.52 66.85 28% 24% Discrepancy 16%
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The result as indicated in table 3 under static calculations using Lira, show that the drift of the top floor for both codes are within limit of 66.0 mm, even though that of NSCP I is more than SNiP by 16%. Further more, the maximum bending moment in the column from NSCP I is also more than SNiP by 28% and its minimum shear force again more than that from SNiP by 24%. The high values obtained in all cases from NSCP I can be attributed to the uniform distribution of design wind pressure over the entire vertical surfaces of the building along its height [1]. Factors such as dynamic coefficient and height factor present in SNiP along side with the inclusion of pulsation wind load effect, which are not defined in NSCP I, seemed to be compensated for, by the uniform distribution of design wind pressure over the vertical surfaces of the building. In conclusion, the study of wind estimation per NSCP I and SNiP has been presented as regard the static behaviour of the building. Even though the NSCP I seems to be more conservative than SNiP in simplicity and application, it can cause over design of a structure and hence can be uneconomical if the factors, such as criteria for wind pulsation, are not fully defined especially for tall buildings. In the second part of this paper I intend to investigate the dynamic behaviour of the building according to both codes, using numerical analysis.
Acknowledgement: The author is grateful to Professor A.M. Maslennikov, Dr. E.B. Oyetola and the Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Technology Minna, Nigeria for their support. REFERENCES
238
S.M. Auta
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8.
Nigerian Standard Code of Practice, NSCP I: 1973, PART 3: Loading. NIGERIAN STANDARDS ORGANISATION, 1973. SNiP 2.01.0785* Loading and excitations, Official publication, Moscow, 2004 (Russian edition). Peter S. Wind forces in engineering. Pergamon press. Oxford, 1978. Kijewski T. and Kareem A. Dynamic wind effects: A comparative study of provisions in codes and standards with tunnel data, Wind Struct., No.1, 1(1998)77-109. Lee B. E. and Ng W. K. Comparisons of estimated dynamic along-wind responses, J. Wind. Eng., Ind. Aeronaut, 30(1988)153-162. Zhou Y. Kijewski T. and Kareem A. Along-Wind load effects on tall buildings: Comparative study of major international codes and standards, J. Struct. Eng., No.6, 128(2002)788-796. Amin N. Martini K. Fatehi H. and Kurata T. Comparing the behaviour of 40 storey structures designed according to US and Japanese Codes, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Tall Buildings in Seismic Regions 55th Regional Conference, Los Angeles, Califonia, pp. 1-9, 1991. Hachiyan, E. Ye., Seismic action on tall buildings and structures, Aistan Publishing House, Iravan, 1973 (Russian edition).
