WIND LOADING ON TALL BUILDING

This paper provides an outline of advanced levels of wind design, and illustrates the
exceptional benefits it offers over simplified approaches.

Types of Wind Design
Typically for wind three basic wind effects need to be considered.
Environmental wind studies
Wind loads for facade
Wind loads for structure
Design Criteria
Stability
Strength
Serviceability
The control of sway accelerations (additional criterion for tall buildings)
Wind is a phenomenon of great complexity. The actual wind and its application to the
always be considered. Upper level wind speed is known as the gradient wind velocity. The
characteristics of wind pressures on a structure are a function of the characteristics of the
approaching wind, the geometry of the structure and the geometry and proximity of the
structures upwind. The pressures are not steady, but highly fluctuating. For most tall
buildings serviceability considerations govern the design and not strength issues. The
ultimate limit state wind speed is adopted by 5% probability of being exceeded in a fifty year
period.

The detailed procedure described in wind codes is sub-divided into Static Analysis and
Dynamic Analysis methods. Design of typical low to medium-rise structures is done by
Simple quasi-static treatment which is universally applied and assumes that the building is a
fixed rigid body in the wind, but it can be unacceptably conservative for design of very tall
buildings. Such a simplified treatment does not consider important factors in wind design of
tall buildings including dynamic response (effects of resonance, acceleration, damping,
structural stiffness), interference from other structures, wind directionality, and cross wind
response. In practice, static analysis is normally appropriate for structures up to 50 metres in
height. Dynamic method is for exceptionally tall, slender, or vibration-prone buildings. It
must be undertaken to determine overall forces on any structure with either a height (or
length) to breadth ratio greater than five, and a first mode frequency less than 1 Hertz.


Static Analysis
Advantages:
Simplicity
Continuity with previous practice
Pressure coefficients should need little adjustment for different upwind terrain types
Existing meteorological data on wind gusts is used directly.

Disadvantages:
Not suitable for very large structures or for those with significant dynamic response.
The flow pattern generated around a building is equally complicated by the distortion
of the mean flow, flow separation, the formation of vortices, and development of the
wake.
Does not work well for cases where the mean pressure coefficient is near zero.



CONCLUSION

The general design requirements are structural strength and serviceability. Serviceability with
respect to occupier perception becomes the governing design issue. It is necessity to
introduce the damping systems in tall buildings in order to reduce vibrations to acceptable
levels. Most international codes have adopted a simplified approach because the advantages
often outweigh the disadvantages - certainly for smaller. Dynamic response levels play an
important role in the detailed design of facade systems. The dynamic response of buildings
can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by the gust factor approach, provided the wind
flow is not significantly affected by the presence of neighbouring tall buildings or
surrounding terrain.










Effects of beam bar anchorage on beamcolumn joint behaviour
In this paper reversed cyclic-load tests are carried out on full-scale reinforced concrete
exterior beamcolumn joints and results are analysed. All beam column joints are having low
ductility capacity and poor energy dissipation ability. It is shown that the types of
reinforcement anchorage in beams have significant effects on the shear capacity and
hysteretic behaviour of exterior beamcolumn joints. Present codes of practice do not
accurately predict the shear strength of the non-seismically detailed joints. It is indicated that
ignoring the design of beamcolumn joints may lead to potential damage of RC framed
buildings in an unexpected low to moderate earthquake.

The possible inelasticity is dependent upon not only the flexural capacity ratio of beam to
column, but also the detailing of both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in the joints,
which affects significantly the shear strength of the beamcolumn connection.. The primary
objective of this experimental study is to investigate the effects of types of beam bar
anchorage and location of lap slices in column reinforcement on the shear strength and
hysteretic behaviour of RC exterior beamcolumn joints subjected to simulated seismic
loading caused by a moderate earthquake.

It is shown that the types of beam bar anchorage have significant effects on shear capacity
and hysteretic behaviour of the exterior joints. It is indicated that the design of RC beam
column joints should not be ignored, even for low to medium earthquakes, although such
design is not required in non-seismic design codes of practice. In earthquake-resistant design,
if the strong-column/weak beam concept is adopted. There is no significant effect of the
location of laps in reinforcement on the ductility and ultimate strength of columns subjected
to reversed loading.

It is widely accepted that failure of beamcolumn joints is caused by diagonal compression
failure of the concrete strut within the core. Ignoring the design of beamcolumn joints may
lead to potential damage of RC framed buildings in an unexpected low to moderate
earthquake. Different models are tested as following reinforcement:
(a) Both tension and compression bars are bent into the joint
(b) Both tension and compression bars are bent away from the joint
(c) Tension bars are bent away from the joint
(d) U-anchorage is adopted

CONCLUSION
With U-type anchorage performs better than that with L-shaped anchorage when subjected to
reverse cyclic loading. The type of beam reinforcement anchorage has a significant effect on
the loaddisplacement hysteretic behaviour and shear resistance of the exterior beam
column joints. Laps in column reinforcement located at the column end zones do not seem to
affect the shear strength of beamcolumn joints under reversed cyclic loading. Shear failure
of a beamcolumn joint may occur before the beam section reaches its ultimate flexural
strength.