Ask the Experts...

Perception of Motion Criteria for Tall

Buildings Subjected to Wind: A Panel Discussion
SESSION SUMMARY

Following the introductory presentation by Ahsan Kareem, each of the panelists were
invited to make some opening remarks, which are summarized below:

McNAMARA: Though the wind tunnel studies of Citicorp building revealed a 40 m-g
acrosswind component, there was not an appreciation for the implications to occupant
perception simply because there was no formal criteria to define unacceptable levels of
motion. It was subsequent discussions with Leslie Robertson during his work on the
World Trade Centers that highlighted the gravity of 40 m-g motions in a tall building and
the necessity for auxiliary damping systems.

It is concerning that we, as designers, can change the model parameters and get different
results, for example using cracked vs. uncracked concrete to lengthen period, and
damping values in general are highly uncertain. How accurate are our models and
predictions?

In terms of structural function, the offices are not occupied at night, when most high
winds tend to be observed. Is this adequately accounted for in our perception criteria?

BOGGS: Though we can have confidence that our wind tunnel tests can tell what the
accelerations will be, they give no indication of what they should be. There lies the
problem. Even when we have criteria in place, there is a definitive lack of feedback on
the acceptability of the criteria in practice. Is our criterion all together too stringent? Such
conservativism costs us money in design.

An important consideration is the effect of waveform on acceleration criteria. This can be

demonstrated by comparing several different waveforms. (A comparison of sinusoidal,
typical acrosswind, typical alongwind and a transient/impulse response are used for
visual demonstration.) The sinusoidal waveform was commonly used to in early motion
sensitivity testing. The acrosswind response, being vortex driven, has some similarity to
the sinusoidal waveform. On the other hand, the alongwind motion is more random in
nature as a result of buffeting. Another common response characteristic in structures is
the impulse response, which is evident during impacts via floor loads or pile driving, etc.
A visual comparison of these four waveforms, scaled to the same peak acceleration, is
presented to beg the question "Will our response to these three wave forms be the same?"
A perception criteria based solely on peak basically implies this.

Repeating this exercise by scaling the four waveforms to have the same RMS value
indicates that all now have the same energy content. Doesn't it seem to be more logical
that we would respond similarly to these? The difference may really be a function of the
duration of the event. If we wish to quantify a persistent perhaps daylong event, then
RMS is probably the better descriptor. However, perception over shorter intervals may be
better defined using peak.

DENOON: Comments emphasize the importance of getting out into the field and talking
to occupants. We need more information not only of the levels of acceleration causing
perception but also those that establish levels of tolerance.

It is apparent that large amplitude motions induce the fright response and sickness
commonly reported. In fact, large motions were responsible for driving occupants of
Hong Kong high-rises out of buildings during typhoons and into far more dangerous
circumstances. More frequently occurring motions do not seem to generate such extreme
fear responses, but are responsible for more annoyance.

Another important consideration in establishing criteria is recognizing who will be

experiencing the motion and how accustomed are they to it. This directly relates to
expectations of performance-based on wind climate. Obviously, in typhoon-ridden zones,
occupants are probably more tolerant of motions than they would be in Midwestern US,
for example. This would require perhaps region-specific criteria.

The other area of distinction is in our qualifications of "perception" vs. "tolerance."

Tolerance is really dependent on building function. Airport control towers would
obviously have a different and more stringent tolerance criterion.

The peak criterion seems to better capture the psychology of the phenomenon. The
question is whether an occupant will accept a given motion? Before they deem motion
unacceptable, they must first perceive the motion. It is a peak acceleration that first
indicates to them that there is motion and therefore it is the critical parameter.

The importance of the frequency of oscillation cannot be underestimated. Longer period

motions become perceptible at larger amplitudes. Obviously for shorter period structures,
the motion will be perceived at lower amplitude levels. Any criteria that does not account
for frequency of motion inevitably leads to the over design of tall buildings.

BANAVAKAR: My involvement in 25 buildings with heights exceeding 600 ft. in

varying wind climates has reiterated the need for some correlation between what is
observed in full scale with what was predicted in the design stage.

The force balance made wind tunnel testing a practical tool in tall building design. For
example, this tool helped us to realize that the Allied Bank Tower in Dallas would have
accelerations exceeding 25 m-g's and motivated the use of a change in effective mass
through a modification of mode shape. Though the forces on the structure, it can be
effective in reducing the accelerations at the top of the structure 30-40%.

Wind-induced accelerations are greatly influenced by the wind environment.

Unfortunately we have no foresight as to the build up of the environment around a project
in the future. However such changes to the surrounding terrain can cause significant
changes in the wind loads on the structure and the resulting acceleration -- in one
example, increasing the accelerations of a building from acceptable levels up to 25-32 m-
g's.

The combinatorial effect of lateral and torsional components is often the reason for
perception problems. Many torsional effects arise under wind loadings (even for
buildings with little to no eccentricity) and must be considered in design.

There is a lack of criteria addressing special structures such as control towers. Our work
on Reagan International Airport in Washington DC highlighted the problems for these
structures with accelerations predicted at 60-70 m-g's, under the 10-year event. Even the
modification of mode shape did not help. In the design, we established their own criteria
of 17 m-g's, somewhere in the commonly accepted residential and office criteria.
Ultimately we put a damper in to achieve sufficient damping (3%). The tower is currently
being monitored by Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory at University of Western
Ontario.

Again returning to the issue of occupant tolerance based on experience. In seismic areas,
there is a certain conditioning to motion as a result of earthquake experience. They may
not be as sensitive to motion as East-coast occupants. Perhaps this motivates the use of a
regional standard and not one that is nationwide.

Damping is another area of concern. What is our understanding of negative aerodynamic

damping?

BURNS: I think we are seeing a trend towards more wind tunnel testing requests by
building owners. In the Chicago building code, we only have to test if a building is over
600 feet or asymmetrical in its plan or form. Our current standard is to use 15 m-g criteria
for residential and 25 m-g for an office. However, when dealing with wind, asymmetry of
not only the building but asymmetries in the wind load due to the environment or
surrounding terrain should also be an indicator that wind tunnel testing is required. Many
owners are interested in seeing if money can be saved in cladding design by consulting
data from wind tunnel pressure tap measurements. While you are at it, it may be a good
time to do the force balance test anyway. In one instance, they were designing a relatively
short building that wouldn't have mandated wind tunnel testing according to the Chicago
building code. However, the tests revealed that the building was being buffeted by a
neighbor causing potential acceleration problems. The moral of the story is that we may
have to require wind tunnel testing in all cases where we are constructing in an urban
environment where interference could be a problem. It is especially concerning that this
can change if someone modifies the surroundings down the road.

The floor was now opened to the audience for discussion.

AUDIENCE: What accelerations have we observed thus far in practice and have they
been correlated back to analytical data and compared to feedback from occupant
interviews?
BOGGS: Hansen did some work in this area but didn't capture very high amplitude
motion. In another case, the building was not instrumented, but predictions from wind
tunnels of what the motions may have been on that day were used to determine the
acceleration levels which were then correlated to the level of perception indicated from
occupant surveys.

MCNAMARA: Reed at MIT monitored Building B in Boston (a standard 40 story office

tower) that had translational and torsional periods that were the same. Tremendous
accelerations were perceptible and you could literally watch the windows open and close
as the building horizon moves. Such visual cues were critical in the perception of
occupants.

BANAVAKAR: I know of a different building that was not stiff enough in the weak
direction, leading to a lot of motion. The addition of a TMD was necessary. Also, WTC
had its accelerations measured, so there were a few tests that at least attempted to validate
analytical predictions with full-scale evidence.

AUDIENCE: Many buildings from that lively age of the skyscraper (60-70s) are being
refurbished to bring them up to standards. How have these buildings done?

BOGGS: Retrofits have been done to remedy performance of buildings made during this
lively period. I have heard no news...I'll assume that's good news.

AUDIENCE: (Peter Irwin, RWDI): There truly is a need for full-scale feedback. In lieu
of real measured data, can we instead use anecdotal evidence? For example, we worked
on a 67 story residential structure in Chicago that was having acceleration problems due
to some effects caused by the John Hancock. The structure was outfitted with a TMD.
One day the damper was locked down as they were doing some work on the mechanical
floor. It just so happened it was a windy day. They got complaint calls. Once the enabled
the TMD, the calls stopped. Such feedback can be useful when actual data is not
available.

DENOON: The first time people feel motions, you will get calls. When they feel it again,
they don't mind. If you can educate them that some motion is okay, that it is safe, they'll
get used to it. If they don't expect it, they are scared. It is the fear factor.

BOGGS: Can people truly become accustomed to motion? I have heard this was the case
with John Hancock occupants. Frivolous complaints are probably due to fear factor and
perhaps indicative of what a peak criterion would capture. But sustained, all day
motion...that is what makes people sick, RMS may be a better measure of this.

DENOON: It was my finding that people got sick when the amplitude of motion
increases. Duration did not seem to enhance sickness. If they got sick in the first 15
minutes, they stayed sick and did not get worse over sustained motion (8 hours). If they
did not get sick at first, they could go the full 8 hours and not get sick.
AUDIENCE: What about the significance of visual stimulus?

DENOON: External cues such as those induced by torsion can be fixed. That's a
structural system problem. But internal cues, like swinging lights, Venetian blinds, these
serve as a motion indicator. Such visual triggers cause perception of motion at lower
thresholds.

BANAVAKAR: I have seen instances in Chicago where the removal of a visual cue for a
complaining occupant led them no longer perceive motion.

DENOON: I have personally experienced the visual cue phenomenon in a bathroom with
white tile and black grout. That geometric grid in repeated patterns moving made me sick
to my stomach.

MCNAMARA: Interestingly complaints seem to intensify when the lease is up. It's a
way to negotiate the cost of space.

BURNS: Well then that is an argument that can be presented to owners as a motivation
for monitoring, to have evidence to defray these claims.

AUDIENCE: How much does it cost to monitor a building?

BANAVAKAR: It cost $5,000-10,000 to monitor Reagan airport, in terms of

instrumentation.

KAREEM: That does not account for installation costs, assembly fees.

AUDIENCE: Roy, education seemed to be a point you emphasized in your thesis.

Raising awareness in the public. Should this be the mission of the (Tall Building)
Committee?

DENOON: Education! We are doing that in practice right now. For a 400+ m building,
with hotel at the top, it becomes necessary to pass out literature at the desk to guests to let
them know what to expect. Grand Hyatt in SF does the same through a little card they
leave on the table in each room. People can get used to it. They can get over it with time.

Ahmad Abdelrazaq Joined the discussion later and made his introductorycomments at
this time:

ABDELRAZAQ: There were no wind tunnel tests used in the design of the John
Hancock. Lots of SOM partners live in the building. It moves, yet it is fully occupied.

Sears and Hancock were really built before their time. They utilized a philosophy of large
torsional stiffness. A lot of liveliness can come from torsion. We cannot underestimate
the significance of torsional velocity. Jerk is also important. It is the change in
acceleration...that's what you feel.
AUDIENCE: We need more monitoring of structures for performance and perception.
We make so many assumptions in the design process. Any comments on that?

DENOON: I have found that in full scale, buildings are a lot stiffer than what they were
designed for. When we consider taller buildings, greater than 200 m, the full-scale and
analytical period come a lot closer. Damping is largely manipulated to get around the
building officials. We can change it to achieve acceptable performance. I think the US
assumes too large of damping values than what is realized in practice.

ABDELRAZAQ: We got good correlations between our assumed and measured

dynamic properties in the Renaissance Center in Detroit. Remember that non-structural
elements and cladding contribute. Also keep in mind that the magnitude of wind dictates
the dynamic parameters, as they are non-linear. Cladding can make some significant
contributions to dynamic parameters.

DENOON: It is common practice to assume 1% damping in tall buildings for

serviceability, but I find that 0.7-0.8% is more reasonable.

BOGGS: Yeah but there is a lot of scatter in damping...

BANAVAKAR: Observed damping in full-scale study by Hill-Carroll, which considered

building height and amplitude of motion for 168 buildings manifested a lot of scatter.
That study found John Hancock to have 0.5%.

KAREEM: Do you think the next revision of ASCE7 will include damping
observations?

AUDIENCE: Amplitude dependence of damping is important. Damping is a key

parameter since it dictates the acceleration levels in the building. In practice, we use 1%
steel, 2% concrete and 1.5% for composite.

ABDELRAZAQ: I think it is going to be a function of structural system as well.

MCNAMARA: There are gray areas in our criteria, in our understanding of damping,
etc. So we are doing a lot of guessing. I say go to the auxiliary damping system. It's
reliable. Quantifiable. We are starting to really use it in projects now.

ABDELRAZAQ: I conclude that education is important. We should condition people to

the performance of tall buildings, such as the note cards the Park Hyatt in San Francisco
uses. This is an important consideration.

Return to Main Page