Lecture #2

Loading:
(Part One)
a) Gravity loading
b) Wind loading

Introduction.
The effect of loads in a tall building is very different from a low-rise building.
The accumulation of gravity loads over a large number of stories will produce very high
column and shear wall loads, at least an order of magnitude above low to mid-rise
buildings. The maximum live gravity loads however, can be approximated from previous
buildings.
Wind loads act over large building surfaces with much higher intensities and with a
longer moment arm about the base. These effects are augmented with slender and unsymmetrical buildings. Wind loads are random and difficult to measure. They are even
more difficult to predict.
In seismic zones, the inertial loads that ensue from the shaking ground may exceed wind
loads. Therefore, inertial loading becomes the dominant influence upon the buildings
shape and cost.
Building Codes tend to be empirical. They are hard to compare with each other because
their rational basis differ, primarily due to local experiences. (Take for example, the
experiences of Miami-Dade County versus the rest of the State of Florida).

Gravity Loading

Dead loads are calculated just as in a low-rise building, via the tributary areas to the
supporting beams and slabs. The member sizes and the material unit weights are used to
estimate the assumed initial member sizes. Later, actual sizes and unit weights are used to
provide accurate loads during the refined analysis cycle of the design process.
Live loads are assumptions. The intensities are chosen with the intended use in mind, such
as offices, residential, balconies, corridors, garages, etc. The worst possibility will form the
basis for the specified concentrated loads.
Different codes show a lack of uniformity in the selection of distributed floor loads. Many
engineers are concerned that this is an indication of the lack of accuracy of these Codes.
Some consider these intensities as conservative (for example, corridor loads = 80 psf),
whereas others have pointed out that load capacity experiments have shown that some
intensities are underestimating the real possible maximum values.
Finally, the effect of impact loading as a gravity live load is assumed to impose a load 2X of
the static load at the point of application (from mechanics of materials theory). For example,
an elevator that is accelerating upwards or is brought to rest on its way down will impose an
impact load upon the cable support system, etc.

Live Load Reduction.

It is improbable that the whole area of a floor, or a building be simultaneously subjected
to the assumed full live load. For that reason, most Codes permit the designer to design
beams and columns for less than the full live loading, via one of these methods:
1) Reduction via percentages. For example, the supporting members for the roof are
designed for 100% of the live loads; the top floor members will only be required to carry
85% of the live loads, and each lower floor is reduced by 5% successively until a
minimum of 50% of the live load is reached, and it remains constant thereon down.
2) Formula based on a tributary area A. The supporting members of each floor will be
designed for the full live load times a modifier formula = 0.3 + 10 / vA, where A is the
accumulated area in square feet.
3) Reduction based on dead-to-live load ratio. The maximum percentage reduction shall
not exceed the factor = 100 x (D + L) / 4.33L. This reduction factor ensures that if the full
live load should occur over the full tributary area, the member would not be stressed to
the yield point.

Construction Loading.
In general, construction loads are the most severe loads placed upon a building. Most
failures occur in buildings under construction. For that reason, buildings that have
survived the construction process will rarely fail structurally, unless of course, they are
subjected to unusually high wind or seismic loads not considered during the design.
Common construction methods will cast a floor every week. Shoring for that floor will be
in place for about four weeks, in order to permit the concrete to attain a 28-day strength.
That means that shoring is left in place for the four levels below the active level. Many
experienced shell-subcontractors can reduce the new floor cycle from 7 down to 3 days,
especially using concrete pumping. The combination of a more liquid mix (higher slump)
and faster cycles means that some levels immediately below may be loaded beyond their
early strengths. In addition, new construction equipment, such as climbing cranes and
pumps that are secured to the freshly placed floors may require additional shoring to
several lower levels.
The State of Florida has recognized these construction sequence dangers, and require hirise projects to use a special structural engineer, called a threshold inspector, to
supervise and approve the construction process until the structure is finished.

Wind Loading

Modern tall building designers are increasingly using lighter concretes, cladding
and partitions. The consequence is that the increased efficiency and lightness of the
structure has also increased the hi-rises flexibility (lateral deflections). Increased
understanding of the effects of gust forces and their dynamic interaction with the
hi-rise has lead to several methods of analysis.
The first is The Uniform Building Code, which is a static approach that assumes
the building to be a fixed rigid body in the wind. This method is appropriate for
mid-sized buildings of common height, that are not particularly slender nor
susceptible to vibrations while loaded under high winds.
The second is the ANSI/ASCE-7, which is also known as Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. This method differentiates between the
building as a whole and the individual structural components and cladding.
The third approach, the Dynamic Method is used for very tall buildings (greater
than 400 feet, or 120 m), or slender (their height is greater than five times their
width), or highly susceptible to vibrations under wind loads (sensitive to windexcited oscillations).
Finally, wind tunnels tests are discussed as an experimental comparison with these
analytical methods.

The Static Approach: The Uniform Building Code Method.

The UBC method reduces all the dynamics into an equivalent static loading, that takes
into account the effects of gusting and extreme local pressures over the faces of the
building, and the effects of location and the importance of the building to the community.
The design wind pressure p is obtained from the formula,

p = Ce Cq qs I
where Ce is a coefficient that accounts for the combined effects of height, exposure and
gusting (see table on the next slide). C q is a coefficient that allows for higher pressures for
wall and roof elements; for example, Cq has a value of 1.4 when using the projected area
method of calculating the wind loading for structures over 40 ft in height, whereas it has a
local value of 2.0 at wall corners. The pressure qs is a wind stagnation pressure for a
minimum basic 50-year wind speed at a height of 30 ft above ground, as given for different
regions of the United States in a wind speed contour map. Where local records indicate a
greater than the basic value, use the local value (such as in Miami-Dade). The importance
factor I is taken as 1.15 for post-disaster buildings and 1.00 for all other buildings.

Elevation: Positive internal pressure.

Plan: Positive internal pressure.

Elevation: Negative internal pressure.

Plan: Negative internal pressure.

The ANSI/ASCE-7 Static Analysis

Design Procedure using ANSI/ASCE-7

Figure 2.18 The variation of external wind pressure coefficient Cp with plan dimensions.
Plan views of (a) 0=L/B=1; (b) L/B = 2; (c) L/B > 4

Corresponding elevations.

ASCE-7 Design Example #1: A non-flexible building with H<500 feet.

Figure 2.19 Wind pressures for main wind force resisting system with the wind parallel to
the 60 ft dimension, and (b) with the wind parallel to the 120 foot dimension.

ASCE-7 Design Example #2: A non-flexible building with H>500 feet.

ASCE-7 Design Example #3: A 60-story flexible building.

ASCE-7 Design Example #4: A 50-story flexible building in Miami.

Wind Tunnel Testing

Objectives of Wind Tunnel Tests:

1. Determine the design lateral loads.
2. Predict the response of the building under the influence of wind loading.
3. Establish the boundary layer profile and turbulence intensities.
4. Find the intensity and duration of extreme winds.
5. Find the influence upon and from nearby existing and proposed buildings.
6. Find the drag, vortex shedding and wind separation from the building surface.
7. Find the buildings dynamic response.
8. Find the loads on cladding and glass.
9. Find the near-zone effects (that is, the stability of vehicles and pedestrians).
10. Establish what is the motion tolerance (occupants discomfort).
11. Determine the buffeting created to downstream structures.
12. Determine the possible damage to structures from flying gravel.
13. Determine the increase potential of moisture penetration.
14. Determine the effect of snow accumulation.
15. Determine the effect upon the structure from pollution.
Find the most favorable shape that minimizes:
16. the intensity and scale of the pressure fluctuations on exterior panels and glass.
17. the floor-by-floor shear forces.

At left is a model of the scaled buildings surrounding the pressure model (between
engineers). Notice the round table that supports the cluster, which is used to rotate
the models in order to study different angles of incidence for the wind. At right is a
close-up of the model with many pressure ports visible on each surface (Rowan,
Williams, Davis and Irwin, Inc.

At left is shown a rigid aero-elastic model from RWDI, and to the right of it is the diagram
showing the gimbal assembly below the table to rotate the model. A typical scale for these
models is 1:400 for a 50-story building. The model is rotated and measured at 10 to 20 angle
intervals, and may have 500 to 800 tiny pressure taps. The results of these pressure
measurements is shown as isobars the extreme right figure, which is also shown as the block
pressure diagram.

Wind Tunnel Laboratories

1) Cermak, Peterka and Peterson (CPP Wind).
1415 Blue Spruce Drive #3, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Attention: Mr. Leighton Cochran.
Telephone 970-221-3371 / www.cppwind.com
2) Rowan, Williams, Davis and Irwin, Inc. (RWDI).
650 Woodlawn Road West, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1K 1B8.
Attention: Mr. Len Sang.
Telephone 519-823-1311 / www.rwdi.com
3) Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory.
University of Western Ontario, Faculty of Engineering,
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9.
Attention: Mr. Erik Ito.
Telephone: 519-661-3338 / www.blwtl.uwo.ca

Mechanical Dampers

References
1. Tall Building Criteria and Loading, Monograph on Planning and Design of Tall
Buildings, Volume CL, ASCE, 1980.
2. Uniform Building Code (1988), Intl. Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA.
3. Simiu E., Scanlan R.H., Wind Effects on Structures, Wiley, New York, 1986.
4. Simiu E., Equivalent static wind loads for tall building design, J. Structural Div.,
Proceedings of ASCE 102, April 1976.
5. Smith B.S., Coull A., Tall Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1991.
6. Taranath B.S., Steel, Concrete and Composite Design of Tall Buildings, 2nd Edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998.
7. Willis C., Form Follows Finance, Princeton Architectural Press, Princeton, 1995.