See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282657786

Wind Load Factors for Dynamically Sensitive Structures with Uncertainties

Article  in  Engineering Structures · September 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.08.031

CITATIONS READS
10 1,552

4 authors, including:

Dae Kun Kwon Ahsan Kareem

University of Notre Dame University of Notre Dame
64 PUBLICATIONS   654 CITATIONS    464 PUBLICATIONS   9,180 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bruce Ellingwood
Colorado State University
368 PUBLICATIONS   9,274 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wind load and code View project

NHERI SimCenter View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dae Kun Kwon on 09 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Wind Load Factors for Dynamically Sensitive Structures with

Uncertainties

Dae Kun Kwon1, Ahsan Kareem2, Rachel Stansel3, Bruce R. Ellingwood4

d pt
1
Research Assistant Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences, Univ. of
Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. E-mail: [email protected]

te ri
2
Robert M. Moran Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences, Univ. of
Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. E-mail: [email protected]

di sc
3
Lead Engineer, ABS Consulting, San Antonio, TX 78232. E-mail: [email protected]
4
Distinguished Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Ft.

ye nu
Collins, CO 80517. E-mail: [email protected]
op a
Abstract
C M
The current recommendations for the load factors on wind load in ASCE Standard 7 are
ot ted

based on an analysis of performance of rigid buildings, which may not be adequate for

dynamically sensitive structures. In light of the uncertainties associated with dynamic

characteristics of flexible buildings such as natural frequency and damping ratio, the load
ep

factors for such buildings may deviate from that in ASCE 7. This study investigates the
cc

efficacy of the current wind load factor for dynamically sensitive structures in the presence

of uncertainties. A systematic analysis is performed using Monte Carlo simulations.

N
A

Uncertainties associated with each component of the wind load effects such as the wind

speeds, natural frequency and damping ratio of a building are incorporated in the load

effects based on both ASCE Standard 7-05 and ASCE Standard 7-10. In addition, a

database-enabled design (DED) procedure is utilized to support the analysis of the wind

load factor, especially for the acrosswind case where ASCE 7 does not offer any guidance.

1
In addition, the effects of terrain conditions, amplitude-dependent frequency and damping,

and negative aerodynamic damping on the wind load factor are also discussed.

Recommendations are made for wind load factors for dynamically sensitive structures both

in the alongwind and acrosswind directions and for non-hurricane and hurricane winds.

d pt
te ri
Keywords: Buildings (codes); Design (buildings); Hurricanes; Structural engineering;

di sc
Uncertainty; Wind engineering; Wind load factors

ye nu
Introduction
op a
The wind load factor recommended in ASCE Standard 7 for load combinations
C M
involving wind load are based on an analysis of performance of rigid buildings (Ellingwood
ot ted

et al. 1982; Ellingwood and Tekie 1999). It accounts for deviations in the actual loads from

the nominal loads and for the uncertainties associated with the load effects. To estimate this
ep

factor realistically, studies have been carried out to account for the effects of both aleatory

and epistemic uncertainties, including those in the estimation of extreme wind speeds, wind
cc

load effect model, wind tunnel experiment results etc., which significantly influence the
N

wind effects on rigid buildings (e.g., Minciarelli et al. 2001; Diniz et al. 2004, 2005).
A

Wind effects on flexible buildings are more significant than those on rigid buildings,

and the dynamic response parameters, especially frequency and damping, contribute

additional uncertainty to the response (e.g., Gabbai et al. 2008; Bashor and Kareem 2009;

Chen and Huang 2010). In light of these uncertainties and the fact that the building

response is no longer proportional to the square of the wind velocity, a wind load factor (or
2
load factors) that are more conservative than the factor currently used in ASCE 7 may be

required for tall building design. The aforementioned studies considered a sample building

to determine wind induced effects such as wind pressures/loads, base moments and top

displacements based on wind tunnel datasets. Uncertainties associated with wind speeds,

d pt
frequency and damping, and other parameters such as errors in wind tunnel experiments

te ri
and measured datasets were taken into account. Overall trends from the studies have

di sc
indicated an increase of the load factor.

A number of issues remain concerning wind load factors for flexible buildings. First,

ye nu
ASCE 7-10 has introduced new wind maps based on a mean recurrence interval (MRI) of

700 years for basic wind speed for the Category II buildings (Vickery et al. 2009, 2010),
op a
which replaced the 50-year MRI wind speed map in ASCE 7-05. Along with this change,
C M
the wind load factor was reduced from 1.6 to 1.0 for the load combinations in which the
ot ted

wind load is the principal action. Most previous studies of tall, flexible buildings have

focused on the wind loads and wind load factors in ASCE Standard 7-05. These earlier
ep

studies must be revisited to explore how these recent changes might affect the wind load

factors and other wind load requirements for flexible buildings in the current edition of
cc

ASCE 7. Second, although past studies (e.g., Gabbai et al. 2008; Bashor and Kareem 2009;
N

Chen and Huang 2010) have concluded that the load factor for flexible buildings should be
A

higher than that for rigid buildings, the results among these studies were inconsistent. In

addition, given that the effect of the uncertainties on the acrosswind response of tall

buildings would be different from their alongwind response due to more significant

aerodynamic interactions and negligibly small contribution of the mean response, the load

factor in the acrosswind direction may also be different from that in the alongwind direction.
3
For example, Gabbai et al. (2008) reported that overall wind load factors for selected

members of an example tall building using synchronous pressure measurement data ranged

from 1.9 – 3.5 for the alongwind and acrosswind top displacements based on the

probabilistic peak wind load effects used in rigid buildings (Minciarelli et al. 2001; Diniz et

d pt
al. 2005). However, these load factors for the case of rigid building ranged from 1.9 – 2.3,

te ri
which depart from the expected load factor of 1.5–1.7 in Ellingwood and Tekie (1999) and

di sc
1.51 in Bashor and Kareem (2009). In addition, the load factors reported in Gabbai et al.

(2008) were very close in the alongwind and acrosswind cases, while Bashor and Kareem

ye nu
(2009) reported that load factors for the acrosswind response were larger than those for the

alongwind response. This suggested that the current load factor might not be adequate to
op a
account for the acrosswind load effects. Overall, the load factors suggested by Gabbai et al.
C M
(2008) were considerably higher than those suggested by others (e.g., Bashor and Kareem
ot ted

2009). Chen and Huang (2010) also examined wind load factors, quantifying the

probabilistic wind load effects with the assumption of parametric variations of wind speed
ep

and extreme load coefficient and finding that the structural response was proportional to the

wind velocity to the power of 2 to 3 for flexible buildings. Their load factor was close to
cc

that reported in Bashor and Kareem (2009) when the power was 2.5. Third, there has been
N

little consideration of the impact of different terrain conditions (exposures) on response of

A

dynamically sensitive buildings, which may be one of the key parameters for proper

assessment of the wind load factor. Finally, there is limited information for the load factor

associated with hurricane winds, which might be higher due to inherently higher

uncertainties in hurricane wind speeds, as shown in the literature for rigid buildings (e.g.,

Ellingwood and Tekie 1999; Minciarelli et al. 2001; Diniz et al. 2004, 2005).
4
 To address the above issues, this study investigates the applicability of the current wind

load factor for dynamically sensitive structures in the presence of uncertainties. A

systematic analysis is performed using Monte Carlo simulations in which uncertainties

associated with each parameter involved in the wind load effects, such as wind speeds,

d pt
natural frequency and damping ratio, are incorporated using both ASCE Standard 7-05 and

te ri
ASCE Standard 7-10 procedures. In addition, a database-enabled design (DED) procedure

di sc
(Zhou et al. 2003; Kwon et al. 2008; Kwon and Kareem 2013) is also included to validate

the assessment of the wind load factor, especially for the acrosswind direction where ASCE

ye nu
Standard 7 does not offer any guidance. Finally, recommendations are made for wind load

factors for dynamically sensitive structures loaded in both the alongwind and acrosswind
op a
directions as well as in non-hurricane and hurricane wind regimes.
C M
ot ted

Wind load factor in ASCE Standard 7

Background of the wind load factor for load combinations in ASCE 7

ep

The wind load factor (w) in ASCE Standard 7 is defined using the first-order reliability

method (FORM) as (Ellingwood et al. 1982; Ellingwood and Tekie 1999) :

cc

 W 
w     1    VW  (1)
 Wn 
N
A

where W/Wn = the bias or ratio between the mean and the nominal wind loads/pressures,

where the nominal value (Wn) is determined in accordance with the ASCE 7 criteria; β = the

reliability index; α = the sensitivity coefficient; and VW = the coefficient of variation (COV)

in the wind load/pressure. Using the values for a rigid building reported by Ellingwood and

5
Tekie (1999), i.e., W/Wn = 0.78,  = 2.5,  = 0.75, VW = 0.37, the load factor defined in Eq.

(1) results in w = 1.32, which is equivalent to the load factor (1.3) used in ASCE 7-95. The

mean wind load/pressure in that study implicitly included a wind directionality factor of

0.85. When an explicit wind directionality coefficient, Kd= 0.85 was added to the ASCE 7

d pt
provisions for rectangular buildings in 1998, the corresponding wind load factor (=

te ri
1.3/0.85), excluding the directionality factor, was increased to 1.6. When Ellingwood and

di sc
Tekie (1999) later revisited the choice of probability distribution for modeling the extreme

wind speed and the difference between wind speed models in hurricane zones versus non-

ye nu
hurricane zones, they concluded that the reliability index, , for wind loads should be

approximately 3.0. A single wind load factor of 1.6 was employed for editions of ASCE 7
op a
C M
between 1998 and 2005.

In ASCE Standard 7-10, the wind load factor in combinations 4 and 6 was reduced to
ot ted

1.0 because of the change in the specification of the design wind speed. The wind speeds

for strength design were re-mapped at much longer MRIs, which are 700 to 1,700 years
ep

depending on the Occupancy Category (Figure 26.5 in the ASCE 7-10), thus eliminating

the need for an importance factor for different building risk categories and the discontinuity
cc

in the risk between the hurricane-prone coastal areas and the remainder of the country, and
N

better aligning the treatment of wind and earthquake effects (C2.3.2 in ASCE 7-10).
A

6
Relationship between the wind load factor and MRI of wind speed in ASCE 7

The wind pressures/loads in ASCE Standard 7 are calculated from the 3-second gust

wind speed, V3-s. The ratio of this wind speed for any MRI, T, (VT) to the 50-yr MRI wind

speed (V50) in non-hurricane prone regions is (e.g., Peterka and Shahid 1998):

d pt
VT
 0.36  0.1 ln(12 T ) (2)
V 50

te ri
When the wind speed maps in ASCE 7-2010 were developed, the wind load factor (w) was

di sc
defined as the ratio between the point estimates of the T-yr and 50-yr wind speeds as:

ye nu
n
V 
w  T  (3)
 V 50 
op a
where n equals 2, which is based on the behavior of rigid buildings in the absence of any
C M
dynamic amplification. Eq (3) implies that all uncertainty in the wind load is vested in the
ot ted

uncertainty in the wind speed. Using the load factor of 1.6 defined in ASCE 7-05, Eqs (2)

and (3) yield T = 709 years for Risk Category II structures (where the importance factor (I)

is 1.0). Accordingly, T was set equal to 700 years in in developing the wind speed maps in
ep

ASCE 7-10 and w was set equal to 1.0. For example, V50 defined in ASCE 7-05 was 40 m/s
cc

in the Midwest region; using T = 700-yr MRI and V50 = 40 m/s in Eq. (2) for the Risk

Category II structures (I = 1.0), V700 becomes 51 m/s, which is the new basic wind speed
N
A

defined in ASCE 7-10.

For rigid buildings such as low-rise structures, the wind loads are proportional to the

square of the wind speed because the wind responses are governed by mean (static) and

background turbulence effects (quasi-static). However, in the case of flexible buildings, n

may exceed 2 because the response is dominated by inertial effects (e.g., Rachel and
7
Kareem 2009; Chen and Huang 2010). For example, assuming that n = 2.5 and T = 700-yr,

V700 = 51 m/s; with V50 = 40 m/s, as before, the implied wind load factor based on Eq. (3)

would increase from 1.6 to 1.84 for flexible buildings. Such increases will be considered in

more detail in the sequel.

d pt
te ri
Evaluation of Wind Load Factor

di sc
Analysis methods

In order to determine appropriate wind load factors for dynamically sensitive buildings,

ye nu
extensive Monte Carlo simulations were performed for over 100 separate cases, in which

the effects of rigid versus flexible buildings and uncertainties associated with wind speeds,
op a
frequency, damping, and other parameters such as pressure/force coefficients and wind
C M
parameters (e.g., wind profile and turbulence coefficients) were investigated. Two
ot ted

structural responses - base moments and building top displacements - were selected to

assess the wind load factor. In an earlier study by Ellingwood and Tekie (1999), the load
ep

factor was derived based on wind load/pressure of low-rise buildings in which displacement

response is negligible. However, for flexible buildings both the base moments and top
cc

displacements have their respective significance.

N

Two different methods were employed to estimate the wind load factors. The first
A

method is the ASCE 7 analysis procedure for rigid and flexible buildings, i.e., gust

loading/effect factor approach (e.g., Solari 1993; Solari and Kareem 1998). Provisions for

the wind load effects on structures in most codes and standards, including ASCE 7,

generally focus primarily on the alongwind (buffeting) response. However, this method

fails to capture the loading mechanisms in the acrosswind and torsional directions. Given
8
the fact that the acrosswind response is generally dominant for flexible buildings, a

database-enabled design (DED) procedure, which is a promising design procedure for

assessing wind-induced response in a more reliable way than is possible with conventional

codes and standards, is employed as a alternative approach to load factor determination.

d pt
The DED procedure used in this study employs a base moment-based 3-D gust loading

te ri
factor approach (Kareem and Zhou 2003) drawing from a high-frequency base balance

di sc
(HFBB) database. This approach has been adopted in cyberbased on-line DED modules

such as the NatHaz Aerodynamic Loads Database (NALD) (Zhou et al. 2003; Kwon et al.

ye nu
2008; Kwon et al. 2014) and has been introduced in the Commentaries of both ASCE 7-05

and 7-10. A more recent expanded e-module for high-rise buildings, DEDM-HR has an
op a
unique capability, of hosting multiple databases (Kwon and Kareem 2013). For reference,
C M
both e-modules are accessible via an engineering virtual organization, VORTEX-Winds
ot ted

(https://vortex-winds.org) (Kareem et al. 2012).

Two HFBB databases are utilized in the DED procedure: the first is from the NatHaz
ep

Modeling Laboratory at the University of Notre Dame, USA, which was the basic HFBB

database used in the NALD (Zhou et al. 2003; Kwon et al. 2008), and the second is from
cc

the Wind Engineering Research Center (WERC) at Tamkang University (TKU), Taiwan
N

(Cheng and Wang 2004). Both databases are housed in e-module, DEDM-HR (Kwon and
A

Kareem 2013). Both NatHaz and TKU databases have two common terrain conditions

(Exposures A and C), but the TKU database also has a greater subdivision in the datasets

with an additional terrain condition (Exposure B). We have included Exposure A in this

paper, despite the fact that ASCE 7 no longer includes this exposure, in order to examine

the effect of terrain exposure on flexible building response in later sections. The databases
9
consist of non-dimensional base moment/torque power spectral density [CM(f)] and RMS

base moment/torque coefficients (CM) in alongwind, acrosswind and torsional directions in

each dataset, which are the key parameters for estimating wind responses using a 3-D gust

loading factor approach. For completeness, a brief summary of the DED procedure is

d pt
discussed in the Appendix I. More detailed descriptions of the analysis scheme, the datasets,

te ri
wind tunnel test conditions, and validity of the HFBB datasets can be found in Kareem and

di sc
Zhou (2003), Zhou et al. (2003), and Cheng and Wang (2004), Kwon et al. (2008), and

Kwon and Kareem (2013).

ye nu
Load factor definitions and uncertain parameters
op a
C M
The test cases for the wind load factor analysis are classified in terms of: rigid or

flexible buildings; uncertainties in wind speed; uncertainties in fundamental natural

ot ted

frequency and damping ratio of buildings; all uncertainties. Tables 1 and 2 describe the

uncertain parameters for the ASCE 7 and DED procedures, respectively, based on a
ep

comprehensive review of the literature. The parameters are used to estimate the base

moment and top displacement of the case study buildings. Note that the uncertain
cc

parameters b, c and q are associated with the wind speed, which includes errors in the
N

estimation of extreme wind speeds such as a proper choice of probability distribution of

A

extreme winds, sampling errors etc., wind speed conversion errors for different averaging

time (e.g., 3-sec to 1-hr for wind response estimation), and observation error in wind speed,

respectively. In addition, note that the epistemic uncertainties that arise from the use of

HFBB aerodynamic loads, such as that used in the DED procedure (Appendix I), may

10
become important when the fundamental mode shapes depart from the ideal uncoupled

linear form (Bernardini et al. 2013). Although Zhou et al. (2002) reported that the influence

of non-ideal mode shapes is negligible for base bending moments (and the DED procedure

used in this study), such uncertainties may also affect the load factors to some degree.

d pt
Two load factor definitions are utilized in this study:

te ri
1) Load Factor 1 (LF 1): This load factor, defined in Eq. (1), was developed from

di sc
traditional First-Order reliability analysis. The sensitivity coefficient,  = 0.8, reflects the

skew-positive nature of the Type I extreme value distribution used to model the wind

ye nu
response. The reliability index,  = 3.0, is used (Ellingwood and Tekie 1999).

2) Load Factor 2 (LF 2): Generally when a variable is a function of a product of other
op a
C M
independent random variables, the resulting distribution is similar to a lognormal

distribution. Accordingly, the second load factor definition is introduced here which
ot ted

assumes that the resulting wind response has a Lognormal distribution:

exp    ln  1  VW  
2
   
 w , LF 2  W 
ep

(4)
1  VW
2
 Wn 

where    0 . 72 (e.g., Lind 1971) and the other variables are the same as defined in LF1.
cc

In both LF1 and LF2 definitions, the nominal wind response (Wn), either the base
N
A

moment or displacement, is determined by ASCE 7 or the DED procedure assuming that

there are no uncertainties involved, while W and VW are determined by Monte Carlo

simulation (100,000 samples) taking uncertainties in the parameters into account. Note that

the effect of wind directionality is excluded in this study, as in Ellingwood and Tekie

11
(1999), in which they recommended a separation between the wind directionality effects

and the load factor.

Example buildings

d pt
Two example buildings were utilized in the assessment of the wind load factor: (a)

te ri
Building 1, the CAARC (Commonwealth Aeronautical Advisory Research Council)

di sc
standard tall building (e.g., Holmes et al. 1990): width B = 46 m; depth D = 30 m; height H

= 183 m; fundamental natural frequencies in alongwind and acrosswind directions, fx = 0.17

ye nu
Hz and fy = 0.177 Hz, respectively; linear mode shape; building bulk density B = 157

kg/m3; damping ratio = 0.01; air density A = 1.22 kg/m3. The building is assumed to be
op a
C M
located in an urban environment within the continental US, which corresponds to Exposure

A defined in ASCE 7-98; b) Building 2: B = D = 40 m (square cross-section); H = 200 m;

ot ted

fundamental natural frequencies in alongwind and acrosswind directions, fx = fy = 0.2 Hz,

respectively; linear mode shape; building bulk density B = 245 kg/m3; damping ratio =
ep

0.02; air density A = 1.22 kg/m3. This building is located in a suburban area (Exposure B

in ASCE 7-10).
cc

Various magnitudes of 3-sec gust wind speeds were utilized to compare the 2005 and
N

2010 versions of ASCE Standard 7 and to consider non-hurricane and hurricane wind
A

climatologies. This provides overall trends in the wind load factors associated with the

recent changes in the ASCE 7 wind load provisions, especially for the different basic wind

speeds.

12
Wind Load Factors for Flexible Building Response

Load factors using basic wind speed defined in ASCE 7-05 – non-hurricane winds

The basic wind speed,V3-s, was assumed to be 40 m/s for Building 1 and 63 m/s for

Building 2 for the estimation of alongwind load factors. No special consideration for

d pt
hurricane winds was considered in this case study; the hurricane case will be examined

te ri
separately in a later section. The DED procedure utilized the TKU database for Building 2

di sc
because the NatHaz database does not contain datasets for Exposure B. A comparison of

the alongwind responses computed from the ASCE 7 and DED procedures, e.g., the base

ye nu
moments, top displacements and top root-mean-square (RMS) accelerations, is presented in

Table 3. Some differences can be seen, with the DED results being slightly higher than
op a
those given by ASCE 7. This may be attributed to the building-specific aerodynamic load
C M
introduced in DED, whereas ASCE 7 is based on a simplified procedure, i.e., gust
ot ted

loading/effect factor. In view of the inherent differences between the two procedures, the

building responses agree reasonably well. Similar conclusions have been drawn in other
ep

studies (Zhou et al. 2003; Kwon et al. 2008; Kwon and Kareem 2013).

Table 4 shows the load factors for both example buildings using the ASCE and DED
cc

procedures for the alongwind response. Note that the response for rigid buildings was
N

obtained by excluding the resonant response component, i.e., including only mean and
A

background components. For the cases in which no uncertainties were involved (described

as None in the table), the load factors both for the rigid and flexible buildings reduced to

unity (1.0) . This indicates that the bias (W/Wn in Eq. 1 or 4) between the mean and the

nominal wind loads/displacement was unity. The load factors for the two example buildings

13
using ASCE 7 and DED showed very good agreement despite different wind characteristics

(e.g., basic wind speeds, exposures) and building properties except when all uncertainties

are involved (Flexible All in Table 4), the latter due to the level of uncertainties (i.e., COV)

assumed in the non-dimensional base moment spectrum [CM(fr)] and RMS base moment

d pt
coefficients (CM) in Table 2. The displacement-based load factors were slightly higher than

te ri
the base moment-based load factors especially when frequency and damping uncertainties

di sc
were involved. This is attributed to the involvement of frequency and damping multiple

times in displacement calculations. For example, the displacement calculation procedure in

ye nu
ASCE 7 is explicitly expressed as a function of frequency and gust effect factor (G) and the

latter is also associated with frequency and damping parameters.

op a
C M
Overall, the wind load factors LF 2 were slightly higher than LF1, but they generally

showed good agreement with less than 5% difference between them. With regard to rigid
ot ted

versus flexible buildings, there was an increase in the load factors for the flexible building,

especially when uncertainties associated with wind speed, frequency and damping (Flexible
ep

bcq, f &  case) were introduced. The effects of frequency uncertainty (Flexible bcq, f) for

the base moment-based load factors turned out to be very small as compared to the effect of
cc

wind speed uncertainty (Flexible bcq); however, such effects were more apparent in the
N

displacement-based load factors. Given the fact that there exists large uncertainty
A

associated with damping (COV = 0.40 in Tables 1 and 2), it is not surprising that damping

effects are dominant in the estimated load factors for the Flexible bcq, f &  case. In

addition, the scatter between the Flexible bcq, f &  and all uncertainties involving wind

profile, turbulence intensity, external pressure coefficients parameters, etc. using the ASCE

14
7 procedure tends to be negligible. This shows that uncertainties associated with wind

speed, and frequency and damping (Flexible bcq, f &  case) are the key factors that

contribute most to uncertainty in flexible building response. Additional simulations (Bashor

2011), not reported here for brevity, include an uncertainty analysis with wind-related

d pt
parameters such as wind speed, wind profile, and turbulence intensity parameters. The

te ri
results were virtually the same when compared to the case involving only wind speed

di sc
uncertainty parameters (Flexible bcq).

For the acrosswind case, only the DED procedure could be utilized to assess wind load

ye nu
factors because there are no comparable provisions in ASCE 7 for this case. The basic wind

speed was assumed to be 40 m/s both for Building 1 and 2. The results for the acrosswind
op a
C M
analysis are given in Table 5. The overall trends are similar to those for the alongwind case

given in Table 4: the load factors for flexible buildings are notably affected by the wind
ot ted

speed, frequency and damping and the displacement-based factors are larger than the base

moment-based factors. It is observed that unlike the alongwind case, discrepancies between
ep

Buildings 1 and 2 are more notable for the flexible cases. However, such discrepancies are

less significant when the acrosswind load factors for Building 2 are estimated in Exposure
cc

A, included for comparison in Table 5 (“B2, DED – NatHaz, Exp. A”). This trend is due to
N

the effect of different exposures for each building example, i.e., Exposure A for Building 1
A

vs. Exposure B for the Building 2, which will be examined further in the next section. The

load factors for the acrosswind response are larger than those for the alongwind response

for flexible buildings, which indicates that the uncertainty in the acrosswind response is

15
higher than that in the alongwind response. This trend will also be investigated in the next

section. .

In summary, for non-hurricane wind speeds in ASCE 7-05 in the alongwind direction,

uncertainties in response of flexible buildings (“Flexible All” in the Table 4) yield wind

d pt
load factors of about 1.9 and 2.1 for the base moment and displacement using the ASCE 7

te ri
procedure, respectively, while the factors using the DED procedure result in slightly higher

di sc
values, about 2.1 (base moment) and 2.3 (displacement), due to the aerodynamic

uncertainty. The factors are much higher in the acrosswind case and depend on the

ye nu
exposure conditions as shown in Table 5. Based on these observations, wind load factors in

ASCE 7-05 for flexible buildings should be higher than the factor 1.6 used for rigid
op a
buildings if the same level of reliability is to be achieved in both cases; moreover, the
C M
alongwind wind load factors are not adequate if the acrosswind load effects are
ot ted

predominant.
ep

Load factors using basic wind speed defined in ASCE 7-10 – non-hurricane winds

ASCE Standard 7-10 reduced the wind load factor from 1.6 to 1.0 when wind is treated
cc

as the principal action in the load combination as a result of increasing the MRI for nominal
N

wind speed to 700 years from the 50-year MRI used previously. However, any adjustments
A

to the load factor to account for flexible or across-wind response have yet to be considered.

The load factors determined in the previous section were relatively insensitive to different

building properties including frequency and damping values and to different load factor

definitions (LF1 and LF2). Accordingly, only Building 1 and LF2 were utilized to evaluate

the wind load factors for ASCE 7-10 cases. Three exposures, defined in ASCE 7 as
16
Exposures A, B and C, were employed to investigate the effects of exposures both in the

alongwind and acrosswind directions. The nominal wind effect (Wn) was determined using

both ASCE 7-10 and DED procedures with the new basic wind speed for non-hurricane

winds, assuming that building 1 was located in the Midwest region. The 3-sec gust speed

d pt
increased from 40 m/s (ASCE 7-05) to 51 m/s using the new ASCE 7-10 wind map. The

te ri
method for establishing the new wind map in ASCE 7-10 implies that the uncertainties (e.g.,

di sc
wind speeds) considered in ASCE 7-05 (50-yr MRI) are implicitly encompassed in ASCE

7-10 (700-yr MRI). For this reason, uncertainties associated with frequency and damping

ye nu
were examined only to compare wind load factors for the flexible building case. Figure 1

shows probability of exceedance curves for alongwind base moments and displacements of
op a
the building 1 example using both ASCE 7-05 and 7-10 winds. It is clearly seen that at the
C M
same level of exceedance probability, the effects of two different return periods (50-yr in
ot ted

ASCE 7-05 and 700-year in ASCE 7-10) for both rigid and flexible cases are significant.

The alongwind and acrosswind load factors using ASCE 7-10 basic wind speeds under
ep

three exposures (Exposure A, B and C) are summarized in Table 6(a); the values in

parentheses were obtained through the DED procedure. The load factors for the alongwind
cc

direction obtained by the ASCE 7 and DED procedures for the same exposure agree
N

reasonably well. The discrepancies among exposures become more noticeable when the
A

terrain roughness becomes smoother, i.e., moving toward Exposure C. For the alongwind

case, the increase in the load factors from Exposure A to C for both base moment and

displacement were marginal, while the increases were more apparent in the acrosswind

cases which are more sensitive to inflow conditions.

17
 Terrain effects tend to be different for load factors on alongwind and acrosswind

responses. When the terrain roughness becomes smoother, the alongwind load factor

decreases, while the acrosswind load factor increases. An examination of the wind load

spectra sheds further light on this observation. Figure 2 shows non-dimensional base

d pt
moment spectra for Building 1 under different exposures, which represent typical

te ri
alongwind and acrosswind moment spectra for tall buildings. The vertical lines shown in

di sc
Figure 2 denote corresponding reduced frequencies (fr1 = f1B/UH, f1 = natural frequency of

building) for different exposures, where fr1 is inversely proportional to the mean hourly

ye nu
wind speed at the top of the building (UH). The reduced frequencies decrease when the

terrain becomes smoother due to an increase in the mean hourly wind speed at the top of
op a
C M
the building. The gust effect factor in the ASCE 7 procedure and 3-D gust loading factor in

DED procedure are key parameters for estimating response of flexible structures to wind;
ot ted

both utilize a non-dimensional spectral value corresponding to a reduced frequency (i.e., a

point value). Considering the features of the alongwind spectra and reduced frequencies
ep

associated with different exposures for the given building example, uncertainty associated

with wind speed results in variations in the wind spectral value of interest corresponding to
cc

the reduced frequency that are dependent on building exposure. Accordingly, Building 1 in
N

Exposure A experiences higher uncertainty in the response than in Exposure C because the
A

spectrum is more variable at the relevant reduced frequency in that Exposure. This explains

the trends in alongwind load factors for different exposure conditions observed in Table 6a

since the load factors defined here (Eq. 4) depend on the COV of the building response.

18
 The effect is the opposite in the acrosswind direction. A typical acrosswind spectrum

exhibits a sharp peak around the Strouhal number due to vortex shedding that strongly

depends on the intensity of the incident turbulence. Accordingly, the building in Exposure

C has a sharper (or narrow-band) peak around the Strouhal number than the same building

d pt
in Exposure A because the vortex shedding is vitiated by the presence of high levels of

te ri
turbulence intensity in the incident flow (e.g., Kareem and Cermak 1984). Unlike the

di sc
alongwind spectra, the slope of the acrosswind spectra increases with the decrease of the

frequency, i.e., as the Strouhal number is approached, and this trend is more predominant in

ye nu
smoother terrain due to the influence of turbulences on vortex-shedding. Since the slope

changes around the reduced frequencies of interest are more rapid in the acrosswind
op a
spectrum, the acrosswind load factors for different exposures exhibit larger scatter than the
C M
alongwind factors.
ot ted

Table 6(a) suggests that wind load factors for flexible buildings in the alongwind case

should be 1.3 (base moment) and 1.5 (displacement) in Exposure B to achieve the same
ep

reliability as in rigid buildings. For the acrosswind case, the load factors of about 1.6 (base

moment) and 1.8 (displacement) in Exposure B are reasonable but this factor may further
cc

increase if the tall building is located in a smoother terrain, e.g., Exposure C or D, as noted
N

in Table 6a.
A

The current analysis is based on the assumption that the building dynamic

characteristics remain constant under the design loading condition. Recent full-scale studies

reveal changes in both frequency and damping are possible, even at below-design wind

speeds; damping in particular may exceed nominal values used in design when buildings

experience extreme excursions under design loads or local inelastic action within the
19
structural system (e.g., Kijewski-Correa 2003; Bashor and Kareem 2009). Full-scale studies

have revealed that with increasing amplitudes of motion, natural frequency decreases and

damping ratio increases (e.g., Trifunac 1972; Jeary 1986; Kareem and Sun 1990; Kareem

and Gurley 1996; Satake et al. 2003; Spence and Kareem 2013). The increase in wind

d pt
speeds in ASCE 7-10 (700-yr MRI) for flexible buildings would result in higher building

te ri
response than calculated using the 50-year winds in ASCE 7-05 because the gust factor is

di sc
velocity-dependent. For an independent change either in frequency or damping, it is

obvious that a decrease in natural frequency would result in an increase in the response;

ye nu
similarly an increase in the damping ratio would lead to a reduction in the response.

Correlation between changes in frequency and damping remains to be established.

op a
C M
Load factors using basic wind speed defined in ASCE 7-10 – hurricane case
ot ted

Although the new hurricane model adopted in ASCE 7-10 is an improvement over

previous editions of the standard, estimates of hurricane wind speeds inevitably have higher
ep

uncertainty than non-hurricane wind speeds due to errors in such factors as wind speed

conversion for different averaging times, observation errors, hurricane wind field modeling,
cc

etc., especially when much higher MRI wind speeds (700-yr) are considered. For example,
N

Coles and Simiu (2003) noted an increase in the sampling uncertainty of hurricane wind
A

speeds for higher MRI, which was due to limitations in the data from which the hurricane

wind model used in the simulation was inferred and led to increase in wind speed

uncertainty when the model was extrapolated to long return periods (Coles and Simiu 2003).

Vickery et al. (2009) investigated uncertainties in the new hurricane model and reported

that the uncertainty in the estimated 100-yr MRI wind speed was about 6% along the Gulf
20
of Mexico coastline, increasing to about 16% along the coast of Maine. Considering these

observations, three different levels of uncertainty (COVs) regarding hurricane winds such

as 0, 0.05 and 0.1 were assumed to examine the wind load factors.

Wind load factors using Building 1 with a hurricane wind speed of V3-s = 72 m/s are

d pt
shown in Table 6(b) for Exposure B. The assumption of Exposure B is based on the

te ri
following premises: (a) the load factor in Exposure B is likely to be an average value of all

di sc
three exposures (Exposure A, B and C) as observed in the non-hurricane case (Table 6a); (b)

practically all tall buildings in the United States have been constructed in urban/suburban

ye nu
areas rather than open terrains, with the exception of coastal developments. The DED

procedure produces reasonably good agreement with the ASCE 7 procedure, a trend noted
op a
earlier in Table 6(a). The acrosswind load factors are much larger than those in the non-
C M
hurricane case (Table 6) and also are larger than the alongwind load factors in the hurricane
ot ted

case because the reduced frequencies corresponding to hurricane wind speed (V3-s = 72 m/s)

tend to be closer to the Strouhal number (see Figure 2b). However, such a high wind speed
ep

in tall buildings may introduce negative aerodynamic damping, which may lead to a

reduction in total damping, especially for the acrosswind response (Kareem 1978, 1982;
cc

Boggs 1992; Watanabe et al. 1997; Cheng et al. 2002; Gabbai and Simiu 2010; Cao and Gu
N

2013). It is anticipated that aerodynamic damping in the alongwind case may be negligibly
A

small for the building example considered herein; however, for the acrosswind case, it may

reduce the total damping. Thus, the effect of amplitude-dependency may be partially offset

by aerodynamic damping for the acrosswind case.

Assuming that the expected level of uncertainty regarding hurricane winds is 0.05

(“COV = 0.05” in Table 6b), the alongwind load factors (consistent with ASCED 7-10) for
21
flexible buildings should be approximately 1.5 (based moment) and 1.7 (displacement) to

achieve the same reliability as rigid buildings. For the acrosswind case, load factors of

about 2.8 (base moment) and 3.2 (displacement) may be reasonable values. Caution should

be exercised in the case of super-tall buildings in different terrain conditions, especially for

d pt
the acrosswind case under Exposures C or D, where the wind load factors may be impacted

te ri
by the presence of negative aerodynamic damping due to low turbulence intensity and high

di sc
wind speed conditions (high reduced velocity).

ye nu
Concluding Remarks

This study presented an assessment of the alongwind and acrosswind wind load factors
op a
in ASCE Standard 7 for LRFD of dynamically sensitive structures, in which uncertainties
C M
associated with wind speeds, natural frequency and damping ratio of buildings are taken
ot ted

into account. A systematic analysis was performed using extensive Monte Carlo

simulations in which uncertainties in the wind load effects were incorporated based on
ep

ASCE 7-05 and 7-10 procedures as well as a database-enabled design (DED) procedure

using HFBB measurements.

cc

Overall, the analysis suggests that the wind load factor defined in ASCE 7 based on
N

rigid buildings is not adequate for flexible buildings for either alongwind or acrosswind
A

directions due to the sensitivity of flexible buildings to dynamic load effects and associated

uncertainties related to frequency and damping. In addition, the effects of terrain conditions

on the wind load factor for flexible buildings are significant for the acrosswind case. The

displacement-based load factors were generally higher than the base moment-based factors,

especially when frequency and damping uncertainties were considered. The load factors for
22
hurricane winds are larger than for non-hurricane winds, and increase when uncertainty

associated with hurricane wind speed estimation is taken into account. Furthermore, the

acrosswind load factors were generally higher than the alongwind load factors. The

acrosswind response of tall buildings results from complex aerodynamic interactions,

d pt
whereas the alongwind response follows the buffeting action of gusts; the uncertainties

te ri
associated with acrosswind aerodynamics (e.g., wind tunnel test conditions) are more

di sc
pronounced. In addition, the contribution of the mean response is considerable in the

alongwind response, which tends to negate the effects of the aerodynamic uncertainties,

ye nu
while it is negligible in the acrosswind response. Hence, since the design is often controlled

by the acrosswind direction, the relative significance of the alongwind load factor is
op a
diminished.
C M
Note that these observations, which delineate the difference between the rigid and
ot ted

flexible buildings, presume that the building dynamic features remain unchanged under the

design loading condition. Recent full-scale studies reveal that changes in both frequency
ep

and damping are possible at even below-design wind speeds. In addition, in high wind

speed conditions like in hurricanes, negative aerodynamic damping may reduce total
cc

damping, especially for the acrosswind response. Thus, there is a possibility that amplitude-
N

dependency of frequency and damping and negative aerodynamic damping may offset one
A

another to some degree. Accordingly, caution should be exercised in the assessment of

appropriate wind load factors for super-tall buildings in different terrain conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

23
 The authors are grateful for the financial support provided in part by a collaborative

research project between the NatHaz Modeling Laboratory and the Global Center of

Excellence (GCOE) at Tokyo Polytechnic University funded by MEXT, Japan and the NSF

Grant # CMMI 1301008. Dr. Seymour M. J. Spence of the NatHaz Modeling Laboratory is

d pt
thanked for his comments on the manuscript.

te ri
di sc
Appendix I. Theoretical background of DED procedure

The theory and procedure employed in the DED procedure are basically similar to

ye nu
NALD (Zhou et al. 2003; Kwon et al. 2008) and DEDM-HR (Kwon and Kareem 2013) in

which aerodynamic base moment/torque spectra obtained from HFBB experiments are
op a
utilized for evaluating the base moment/torque, the mean/background/resonant equivalent
C M
static wind loads (ESWL), the maximum displacements and the peak/RMS (root-mean-
ot ted

square) acceleration of a building. For the sake of completeness, the underlying theoretical

background is briefly described here.

ep

Assuming a stationary Gaussian process, the expected maximum base moment/torque

response in the alongwind, acrosswind and torsional directions can be expressed as:
cc

Mˆ  M  g   M
N

 M  M
2 2
M (5)
A

B R

2
  
g   CM  M 
2
 M    g R   CM  M   C M ( f r1 ) 
B  4 1 
 

where, M = mean base moment that becomes zero in the acrosswind and torsional

responses; MB, MR = peak background and resonant base moment or torque component,

respectively; g, gB, gR = peak factors for total, background and resonant moments,

24
respectively; M, CM = RMS of the fluctuating base moment/torque response and non-

dimensional base moment/torque response coefficient (=  M

/M ), respectively; M =

reference moment or torque; 1 = damping ratio of a building in the first mode; CM(fr1) =

non-dimensional base moment spectrum value corresponding to fr1 [CM(fr) = fr  S M ( fr ) / 

2
];

d pt
M

fr1 = reduced frequency (fr = f∙B/UH); f = frequency [Hz]; UH = mean wind velocity at

te ri
building height H; fr1 = reduced frequency according to f1 (fr = f∙B/UH); f1 = natural

di sc
frequency of a building in the direction of motion; SM(f) = power spectral density (PSD) of

the fluctuating base moment or torque response; Since CM(fr) and CM are obtained from the

ye nu
HFBB experiments, the mean, background and resonant base moments/torques can be
op a
computed using the building properties.
C M
Using Eq. (1), the equivalent static wind loads (ESWL) on a building can be computed

by distributing the peak base moments to each floor in a similar fashion to how the base
ot ted

shear is distributed to each floor in earthquake engineering applications. In addition, the

displacement response calculation can be computed by invoking a modal analysis

ep

procedure. Details can be found in Zhou et al. (2003), Kareem and Zhou (2003), and Kwon

et al. (2008).
cc
N
A

REFERENCES

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1998). Minimum design loads for buildings

and other structures, ASCE 7-98, ASCE, Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings

and other structures, ASCE 7-05, ASCE, Reston, VA.

25
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings

and other structures, ASCE 7-10, ASCE, Reston, VA.

Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) (2011). AS/NZS 1170.2:2011 Structural

design actions - Part 2: Wind actions, Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS),

d pt
Joint Technical Committee BD-006, Australia/New Zealand.

te ri
Bashor, R. (2011). Dynamics of Wind Sensitive Structures, Ph.D. Dissertation, University

di sc
of Notre Dame.

Bashor, R., and Kareem, A. (2009). “Load factors for dynamically sensitive structures.”

ye nu
11th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Bernardini, E., Spence, S.M.J., Kareem, A. (2013) “A probabilistic approach for the full
op a
response estimation of tall buildings with 3D modes using the HFBB.” Structural
C M
Safety, 44, 91-101.
ot ted

Boggs, D. W. (1992). “Validation of the aerodynamic model method.” Journal of Wind

Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 42, 1011-1022.

ep

Cao, H., and Gu, M. (2013). “Alongwind aerodynamic damping of tall buildings.” Personal

communication.
cc

Chen, X., and Huang, G. (2010). “Estimation of probabilistic extreme wind load effects:
N

combination of aerodynamic and wind climate data.” Journal of Engineering

A

Mechanics, ASCE, 136(6), 747-760.

Cheng, C.-M., Lu, P.-C., and Tsai, M.-S. (2002). “Acrosswind aerodynamic damping of

isolated square-shaped buildings.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial

Aerodynamics, 90, 1743-1756.

Cheng, C.-M., and Wang, J. (2004). “Wind tunnel database for an intermediate wind
26
 resistance design of tall buildings.” Proc. 1st International Symposium on Wind

Effects on Buildings and Urban Environment, Tokyo Polytechnic University, Tokyo,

Japan.

Coles, S., Simiu, E. (2003). “Estimating uncertainty in the extreme value analysis of data

d pt
generated by a hurricane simulation model.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics,

te ri
ASCE, 129(11), 1288-1294.

di sc
Davenport, A. G., and Hill-Carroll, P. (1986). “Damping in tall buildings: Its variability and

treatment in design.” ASCE Spring Convention, Seattle, USA, Building Motion in

ye nu
Wind, 42-57.

Diniz, S. M. C., Sadek, F., and Simiu, E. (2004). “Wind speed estimation uncertainties:
op a
effects of climatological and micrometeorological parameters.” Probabilistic
C M
Engineering Mechanics, 19, 361-371.
ot ted

Diniz, S. M. C., and Simiu, E. (2005). “Probabilistic descriptions of wind effects and wind-

load factors for database-assisted design.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,

ep

131(3), 507-516.

Ellingwood, B., MacGregor, J. G., Galambos, T. V., and Cornell, C. A. (1982).

cc

“Probability-based load criteria: Load factors and load combinations.” Journal of

N

Structural Division, ASCE, 108(5), 978-997.

A

Ellingwood, B., and Tekie, P. (1999). “Wind load statistics for probability-based structural

design.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 125(4), 453-463.

Gabbai, R. D., Fritz, W. P., Wright, A. P., and Simiu, E. (2008). “Assessment of ASCE 7

standard wind loaf factors for tall building response estimates.” Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, 134(5), 842-845.

27
Gabbai, R. D., Simiu, E. (2010). “Aerodynamic damping in the along-wind response of tall

buildings.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 136(1), 117-119.

Haldar, A., and Mahadevan, S. (2000). Probability, reliability and statistical methods in

engineering design. John Willey & Sons, Inc.

d pt
Holmes, J. D., Melbourne, W. H., and Walker G. R. (1990). A commentary on the

te ri
Australian standard for wind loads: AS 1170 Part 2, Australian Wind Engineering

di sc
Society.

Jeary, A. P. (1986). “Damping in tall buildings - A mechanism and a predictor.”

ye nu
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 14, 733-750.

Kareem, A. (1978). “Wind excited motion of buildings.” Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State
op a
University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
C M
Kareem, A. (1981). “Wind-excited response of buildings in higher modes.” Journal of
ot ted

Structural Division, ASCE, 107(4), 701-706.

Kareem, A. (1982). “Acrosswind response of buildings.” Journal of Structural Division,

ep

ASCE, 108(ST4), 869-887.

Kareem, A., and Cermak, J. E. (1984). “Pressure fluctuations on a square building model in
cc

boundary-layer flows.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 16,

N

17-41.
A

Kareem, A. (1988a). “Aerodynamic response of structures with parametric uncertainties.”

Structural Safety, 5(3), 205-225.

Kareem, A. (1988b). “Effect of parametric uncertainties on wind excited structural

response.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 30(1-3), 233-

241.
28
Kareem, A., and Sun, W.-J. (1990). “Dynamic response of structures with uncertain

damping.” Engineering Structures, 12(1), 2-8.

Kareem, A., and Gurley, K. (1996). “Damping in structures: its evaluation and treatment of

uncertainty,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 59(2-3),

d pt
131-157.

te ri
Kareem, A., Kwon, D. K., and Tamura, Y. (2012). “Cyberbased analysis, modeling and

di sc
simulation of wind load effects in VORTEX-Winds.” 3rd American Association for

Wind Engineering Workshop, Hyannis, Massachusetts, USA, August 12 - 14.

ye nu
Kareem, A., and Zhou, Y. (2003). “Gust loading factor – past, present and future” Journal

of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 91(12-15), 1301-1328.

op a
Kijewski-Correa, T. (2003). “Full-scale measurements and system identification: A time-
C M
frequency perspective.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.
ot ted

Kwon, D., Kijewski-Correa, T., and Kareem, A. (2008). “e-Analysis of high-rise buildings

subjected to wind loads.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 134(7), 1139-

ep

1153.

Kwon, D. K., and Kareem, A. (2013). “A multiple database-enabled design module with
cc

embedded features of international codes and standards.” Special Issue of the

N

International Journal of High-Rise Buildings, CTBUH, 2(3), 257-269.

A

Kwon, D., Spence, S., and Kareem, A. (2014). “Performance Evaluation of Database-

Enabled Design Frameworks for the Preliminary Design of Tall Buildings.” J. Struct.

Eng., ASCE, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001229, 04014242.

Lind, N. C. (1971). “Consistent partial safety factors.’’ Journal of the Structural Division,

ASCE, 97, ST6, 1651-1670.

29
Minciarelli, F., Gioffrè, M., Grigoriu, M., and Simiu, E. (2001). “Estimates of extreme

wind effects and wind load factors: influence of knowledge uncertainties.”

Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 16(4), 331-340.

Peterka, J. A., and Shahid, S. (1998). “Design gust wind speeds in the United States.”

d pt
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 124(2), 207-214.

te ri
Satake, N., Suda, K., Arakawa, T., Sasaki, A., and Tamura, A. (2003). “Damping

di sc
evaluation using full-scale data of buildings in Japan.” Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, 129(4), 470-477.

ye nu
Solari, G. (1993). “Gust buffeting. I : Peak wind velocity and equivalent pressure.” Journal

of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(2), 365-382.

op a
Solari, G., and Kareem, A. (1998). “On the formulation of ASCE 7-95 gust effect factor.”
C M
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 77-78, 673-684.
ot ted

Spence, S. M. J., and Kareem, A. (2014). “Tall buildings and damping: a concept-based

data-driven model.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 140(5), 04014005.

ep

Trifunac, M. D. (1972). “Comparisons between ambient and forced vibration experiments.”

Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1(2), 133-150.

cc

Vickery, P. J., Skerlj, P. F., and Twisdale, L. A., Jr. (2000). “Simulation of hurricane risk in

the U.S. using an empirical track model.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
N
A

126(10), 1222-1237.

Vickery, P. J., Wadhera, D., Twisdale, L. A., Jr., and Lavelle, F. M. (2009). “United States

hurricane wind speed risk and uncertainty.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,

135(3), 301-320.

30
Vickery, P. J., Wadhera, D., Galsworthy, J., Peterka, J. A., Irwin, P. A., and Griffis, L. A.

(2010). “Ultimate wind load design gust wind speeds in the United States for use in

ASCE-7.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 136(5), 613-625.

Watanabe, Y. Isyumov, N., and Davenport, A. G. (1997). “Empirical aerodynamic damping

d pt
function for tall buildings.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,

te ri
72, 313-321.

di sc
Zhou, Y., Kareem, A., and Gu, M. (2002). “Mode shape corrections for wind load effects.”

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 128(1), 15-23.

ye nu
Zhou, Y., Kijewski, T., and Kareem, A. (2003). “Aerodynamic loads on tall buildings:

Interactive database.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 129(3), 394-404.

op a
C M
ot ted
ep
cc
N
A

31
 d pt
te ri
di sc
ye nu
(a)
op a
C M
ot ted
ep
cc
N
A

(b)

Figure 1. Probability of exceedance curves of the alongwind response by ASCE 7-05 (50-yr

wind) and 7-10 (700-yr wind) procedures (non-hurricane winds): (a) base moment; (b)

displacement

32
 d pt
te ri
di sc
ye nu (a)
op a
C M
ot ted
ep
cc
N
A

(b)

Figure 2. Non-dimensional base moment spectra for building 1 example: (a) alongwind; (b)

acrosswind – values in the parentheses represent 3-s gust speed (V3-s)

33
 Table 1. Uncertain parameters used in ASCE 7 procedure

parameter Description PDF COV Reference

Minciarelli et al.
(2001); Coles and
Errors in the estimation of extreme
b Normal 0.075 Simiu (2003); Diniz
wind speeds
et al. (2004, 2005);

d pt
Gabbai et al. (2008)
Wind speed conversion for different Minciarelli et al.
c Normal 0.05
averaging time (2001)

te ri
Minciarelli et al.
q Observation error in wind speed Normal 0.025

di sc
(2001)
Kareem (1988a, b);
f Fundamental natural frequency Lognormal 0.05 Bashor et al. (2005);
Gabbai et al. (2008)

ye nu
Davenport and Hill-
Carroll (1986);
 Damping ratio Lognormal 0.4 Kareem (1988a, b);
op a
Bashor et al. (2005);
Gabbai et al. (2008)
C M
Windward and leeward external
Cpw, Cpl Normal 0.1 Bashor et al. (2005)
pressure coefficients, respectively

ot ted

Air density Normal 0.05 Bashor et al. (2005)

K Mode shape Normal 0.05 Bashor et al. (2005)
B Building density Normal 0.05 Bashor et al. (2005)
ep

 , z g , ˆ , bˆ Wind parameters pertaining to wind

Minciarelli et al.
Normal 0.05 (2001); Bashor et al.
profile, turbulence intensity etc.*
 , b , c, d , ,  (2005)
* Symbols used for wind parameters are the same with those defined in the ASCE 7, thus detailed
cc

explanation for each symbol is omitted here for brevity.

N
A

34
 Table 2. Uncertain parameters used in DED procedure

parameter Description PDF COV Reference

Minciarelli et al.
(2001); Coles and
Errors in the estimation of extreme
b Normal 0.075 Simiu (2003); Diniz et
wind speeds
al. (2004, 2005);
Gabbai et al. (2008)

d pt
Wind speed conversion for different Minciarelli et al.
c Normal 0.05
averaging time (2001)
Minciarelli et al.

te ri
q Observation error in wind speed Normal 0.05
(2001)
Kareem (1988a, b);

di sc
f Fundamental natural frequency Lognormal 0.05 Bashor et al. (2005);
Gabbai et al. (2008)
Davenport and Hill-
Carroll (1986);

ye nu
 Damping ratio Lognormal 0.40 Kareem (1988a, b);
Bashor et al. (2005);
Gabbai et al. (2008)
op a
e1, e2 Uncertainty of b and  *
Normal 0.05 Bashor et al. (2005)
e3 Uncertainty of CM(fr)** Normal 0.15 Bashor et al. (2005)
C M
e4 Uncertainty of CM ** Normal 0.25 Bashor et al. (2005)
 Air density Normal 0.05 Bashor et al. (2005)
K Mode shape Normal 0.05 Bashor et al. (2005)
ot ted

B Building density Normal 0.05 Bashor et al. (2005)

Kareem (1988a, b);
CD Drag coefficient Lognormal 0.10
Bashor et al. (2005);
*
Power law coefficients in the wind profile definition
**
CM(fr) = Non-dimensional power spectral density; CM = Non-dimensional RMS base moment
ep

coefficient
cc
N
A

35
 Table 3. Comparison of alongwind responses based on ASCE 7-05 and DED procedures
(V3-s = 40 m/s)

Base moment Top displacement Top RMS

Procedure
( 106 kN-m) (m) acceleration (milli-g)
ASCE 7 1,243 0.39 4.46
Building 1
DED - NatHaz 1,241 0.45 5.40

d pt
ASCE 7 4,257 0.46 4.25
Building 2
DED - TKU 4,711 0.57 5.94
*
ASCE 7 = ASCE 7 procedure; DED – NatHaz = DED procedure using NatHaz database; DED –

te ri
TKU = DED procedure using TKU database

di sc
ye nu
op a
C M
ot ted
ep
cc
N
A

36
Table 4. Alongwind load factors for example buildings 1 and 2 based on ASCE 7-05 basic
wind speed for non-hurricane case using ASCE 7 and DED procedures

Uncertainty Example building Base moment Displacement

cases* and procedure** LF1 LF2 LF1 LF2
B1, ASCE 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

d pt
Rigid B1, DED - NatHaz 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
None B2, ASCE 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

te ri
B2, DED - TKU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
B1, ASCE 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

di sc
Flexible B1, DED - NatHaz 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
None B2, ASCE 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
B2, DED - TKU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

ye nu
B1, ASCE 7 1.49 1.52 1.49 1.52
Rigid B1, DED - NatHaz 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49
bcq B2, ASCE 7 1.49 1.52 1.49 1.52
op a
B2, DED - TKU 1.49 1.52 1.49 1.52
B1, ASCE 7 1.61 1.67 1.61 1.66
C M
Flexible B1, DED - NatHaz 1.59 1.63 1.59 1.63
bcq B2, ASCE 7 1.59 1.64 1.59 1.64
B2, DED - TKU 1.56 1.60 1.56 1.60
ot ted

B1, ASCE 7 1.61 1.67 1.71 1.79

Flexible B1, DED - NatHaz 1.59 1.64 1.69 1.76
bcq, f B2, ASCE 7 1.59 1.64 1.69 1.76
B2, DED - TKU 1.56 1.60 1.65 1.71
ep

B1, ASCE 7 1.71 1.78 1.81 1.91

Flexible B1, DED - NatHaz 1.68 1.74 1.77 1.86
bcq, f &  B2, ASCE 7 1.67 1.73 1.76 1.86
cc

B2, DED - TKU 1.66 1.72 1.75 1.83

B1, ASCE 7 1.74 1.83 1.93 2.08
N

Flexible B1, DED - NatHaz 1.98 2.14 2.08 2.28

A

All B2, ASCE 7 1.71 1.78 1.89 2.01

B2, DED - TKU 1.93 2.08 2.02 2.20
*
Rigid = rigid building; Flexible = flexible building; None = no uncertainties; bcq = wind speed
uncertainties; f and  = fundamental natural frequency and damping ratio uncertainties, respectively;
All = all uncertainties (e.g., pressure coefficients etc.) were considered. See Tables 1 and 2.
**
B1 and B2 = building examples 1 and 2, respectively.

37
Table 5. Acrosswind load factors for building 1 and 2 examples based on ASCE 7-05 basic
wind speed for non-hurricane case using DED procedure (V3-s = 40 m/s in all cases)

Uncertainty Example building, procedure Base moment Displacement

cases and exposure LF1 LF2 LF1 LF2
Rigid and
All cases 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flexible None

d pt
B1, DED - NatHaz, Exp. A 1.49 1.52 1.49 1.52
Rigid
B2, DED - TKU, Exp. B 1.49 1.52 1.49 1.52
bcq
B2, DED - NatHaz, Exp. A 1.49 1.52 1.49 1.52

te ri
B1, DED - NatHaz, Exp. A 1.78 1.89 1.78 1.89
Flexible
B2, DED - TKU, Exp. B 1.70 1.78 1.70 1.78

di sc
bcq
B2, DED - NatHaz, Exp. A 1.79 1.93 1.79 1.93
B1, DED - NatHaz, Exp. A 1.81 1.94 1.93 2.10
Flexible

ye nu
B2, DED - TKU, Exp. B 1.72 1.80 1.82 1.94
bcq, f
B2, DED - NatHaz, Exp. A 1.81 1.95 1.93 2.11
B1, DED - NatHaz, Exp. A 2.04 2.23 2.15 2.40
op a
Flexible B2, DED - TKU, Exp. B 1.93 2.07 2.04 2.21
bcq, f & 
B2, DED - NatHaz, Exp. A 2.00 2.19 2.11 2.35
C M
B1, DED - NatHaz, Exp. A 2.63 3.13 2.75 3.32
Flexible
B2, DED - TKU, Exp. B 2.37 2.71 2.48 2.88
All
ot ted

B2, DED - NatHaz, Exp. A 2.57 3.06 2.69 3.23

ep
cc
N
A

38
 Table 6. Alongwind and acrosswind load factors based on ASCE 7-10 basic wind speed for
non-hurricane and hurricane cases using ASCE 7-10 and DED procedures

Alongwind Acrosswind
Uncertainty ASCE 7 procedure and
cases exposure (DED procedure)* Base
Base moment Displacement Displacement
moment
(a) Non-Hurricane case (V3-s = 51 m/s)

d pt
Exp. A (DED - NatHaz) 1.31 (1.34) 1.49 (1.55) (1.57) (1.75)
Flexible
Exp. B (DED - TKU) 1.30 (1.33) 1.48 (1.48) (1.60) (1.77)
f&
Exp. C (DED - NatHaz) 1.27 (1.32) 1.45 (1.44) (1.69) (1.94)

te ri
(b) Hurricane case (V3-s = 72 m/s) in Exposure B
Flexible f &  – –

di sc
ASCE 7 1.36 1.53
**
COV = 0 DED - TKU 1.36 1.49 2.20 2.67
Flexible f &  ASCE 7 1.53 1.68 – –

ye nu
COV = 0.05 DED - TKU 1.49 1.61 2.83 3.20
Flexible f &  ASCE 7 1.91 2.03 – –
COV = 0.1 DED - TKU 1.82 1.92 3.68 3.91
op a
* Values in the parentheses of the non-hurricane case represent the results from DED procedure
using NatHaz or TKU database
C M
** COV value indicates additional uncertainty with regard to hurricane wind speeds
ot ted
ep
cc
N
A

39

View publication stats