Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 41-44 (1992) 1753-1763 1753

Elsevier

The L.R.C. (load-response-correlation} - Method

A General Method of Estimating Unfavourable Wind Load
Distributions for Linear and Non-linear Structural Behaviour

M. Kasperski and H.-J. Niemann

Building Aerodynamics Laboratory, Ruhr-Universit~t Bochum,

Postfach i0 21 48, 4630 Bochum i, Germany

Abstract
In current design practice, for quasi-static structures, wind
load effects often are defined by the equivalent steady gust
model or by a pseudo-steady approach, neglecting the influence
of the correlation of the fluctuating pressures over the whole
structure. The application of these load patterns may result in
an unconservative design when the minima of the wind loads on
parts of the structure are more critical for a response
considered, depending on its influence function. This problem
particularly occurs wh:~n the wind load has to be combined with
e.g. dead load. Then, for the design an extreme load pattern
which causes the maximum interactive response has to be
defined. These load patterns may be obtained from wind tunnel
tests by a conditional sampling technique. A more efficient
approach, the L.R.C.-Method, is presented in this paper
enabling systematic studies e.g. on the influence of the static
system and on the influence of geometrical non-linearities. In
an example of practical application it is shown that the
extreme load patterns obtained by the L.R.C.-Method are
producing accurate linear peak responses and excellent
approximate values for non-linear responses. So to the
designing engineer as well as to the wind engineer, an
effective tool is presented to describe realistically wind
load effects for linear and weakly non-linear structures with
quasi-statlc behaviour.

I. INTRODUCTION

In most design codes - and so in current design practice - the

static wind action for a structure is defined by using one of
the following two simplified models in different applications:

0167-6105D2/$05.00 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

1754

I) equivalent steady gust model (enveloping gust) using mean

pressure coefficients either obtained in smooth flow or
in turbulent flow times gust velocity pressure for an
averaging time of some seconds d e p e n d i n g on the d i m e n s i o n s
of the structure

2) pseudo-steady approach using extreme local pressure

coefficients for an averaging time of some seconds times
mean velocity pressure where the pressure c o e f f i c i e n t s are
obtained in turbulent flow using different methods for the
evaluation, e.g. peak-factor method (Davenport, Gaussian
properties), quantile-level method, Cook-Mayne m e t h o d etc.

The application of these load patterns may result in an

unconservative design when the minima of the wind loads on
parts of the structure are more critical for a response
considered, depending on its influence function. Particularly,
such a situation may arise, when the wind load is c o m b i n e d with
other loads such as dead and snow load. Portal frames of low-
rise buildings are one example of such structures, the same
problem occurs for canopy roofs, grandstands, cooling towers~
guyed masts, arched structures etc. Accordingly, weighting
factors are used, reducing the load maxima locally. These
factors vary from 1.0 (Eurocode, no reduction), 0.5 (DIN 1055
in Germany, reduction 50%) to 0.0 (Australian ~ta_idard, full
reduction), resulting eventually in an unsafe or uneconomic
design.

For a more precise analysis, two methods may be c o n s i d e r e d for

structures responding quasi-statically. Their main feature is
that they take into account the correlation of the fluctuating
pressures over the whole structure. The first approach is the
covariance analysis. Three sets of data are needed: mean
pressure coefficients, standard deviation coefficients and
correlation coefficients. The amount of data increases: instead
of N coefficients now N + N + (N,N-N)/2 data are needed.
Arranging these data clearly in a code of practice is hardly
possible. Another problem is that in current practice only
static programs are available. So this method seems to be less
practicable for inclusion in a code and direct a p p l i c a t i o n in
practice respectively.

To solv~ this proDlem, an Intemediate step was introduced

using gust-response factors (GRF) to define the d e s i g n load.
Unfortunately, the results obtained are varying in a wide range
even for simple structures depending on the static system under
consideration, e.g. the portal frame of fig. 1 where the GRF of
the negative bending moment in the leeward corner (which is
decisive for the design in combination with the negative
bending moment due to dead load) varies from -14.0 to +18.7 for
the static system being hinged and p i n - j o i n t e d respectively. So
this method is mostly used for special cases in the sense of a
translation of the three load parameters mean value, standard
 1755

deviation and correlation obtained in a wind tunnel test to one

load distribution for the design.

hinged fixed pin-jointed

system
R', R'. -~
h
j, ,b b ~, b .)

GRF 18.7 -2.4 -14.0

Figure 1: Gust response factors for the negative bending moment

in the leeward frame's corner of a low-rise building
with h/b = 0.4, roof's pitch = 5

A second method was introduced to the technical world at the

last ICWE at Aachen 1987 by Holmes [1]. He uses a time domain
identification method to determine the most severe load
distribution for a reaction under consideration. The solutions
obtained by this method are clear since the load patterns are
really occurring. However~ the main disadvantage of the GRF-
Method - the dependency on the static system - remains. The
method itself requires a relatively great experimental effort,
since all point or panel loads have to be measured
simultaneously. To obtain the responses, either an online-
weighting technique o~ a time-domain calculation becomes
necessary. Compared to the experimental effort to get the
'conventional' coefficients, it seems that, unfortunately,
economical reasons hindered a wider spread of this method.

This dl]emma of wind engineering is increased by the current

design practice which has made a further step to including non-
llnearity.

@. THE L . R . C . - M E T H O D

A new startino point for identifying unfavourable load

distributions uses the joint probability density (JPD)
functions of the load processes and the reactions. A strict
analysis of the JPD-functions leads to the same solution as the
time domain analysis used by Holmes. Assuming Gaussian
properties, a new more practicable method has been developed
[2], named L.R.C. i.e. load-response-correlation method. As
1756

input data for the identification of the extreme load

distribution, the same set of data as for the c o v a r i a n c e
a n a l y s i s is n e e d e d .

For the maximum of a response rt, the covariance method leads

to:
m _ | m m
rtmsx = v. a r k "pk + g" ~ X .v a , k .al i " O P k l 2 (I)
k=l k=l i=i

with a,k - influence factor of load k to response i

pk - mean value of load k
g - peak factor
OPk ] 2 _ covariance of load k and 1

Rewriting as follows:

m m
aik ~ ai I " O P k l
m k=l l=l
rl me x = ~ at k "pk + g . . . . . . . . . (2)
k=l Or
!

one can substitute

nl
Ortp k ~ ~ ai I " O P k l 2 :~ ~r i p k , 0 | , ! ' O p k (3)
1=1

with O|'iPk |= l o a d - r e s p o n s e - c o r r e l a t i o n

OP k - standard deviation of load k

o,. i - standard deviation of response i

and obtain:

m m
timex = -~ aik'pk + g" Z~ a r k " Q r t P k ,OPk
k=l k=l

m
= ~ ark" Pk + g ' Q r t P k ' O P k (4)
k::l
 1757

The load pattern given in the parenthesis of eq. (4) now is

d e f i n e d as the sum of the mean load and a weighted f l u c t u a t i n g
load. The w e i g h t i n g factor is the c o r r e l a t i o n of the load and
the response, which gives the method its name. Used in the
sense of an equivalent static load, this load pattern
accurately produces the peak response for a linear system. So,
for a specific response rl the extreme load pattern pe is
d e f i n e d as:

pe ( r i ) = pk + g'(~rlp k "Op k (5)

If the load process is Gaussian, the load pattern pe (rl)

describes the most frequent extreme load pattern [2], i.e. the
solution o b t a i n e d with L.R.C. is the same as the solution
obtained by using a conditional sampling technique in the time
domain as e.g. by Holmes. If however the load process is not
Gaussian, the solution o b t a i n e d by L.R.C. is a very close
approximation to the real load pattern [2].

Compared to the GRF-Method, there are at this point three more

or less essential improvements:

The GRF-Method will not lead to a result if either the mean

of the load or the mean of the response is zero. In the first
case, the extreme load pattern, i.e. GRF times mean load, is
constant times zero, in the second case one gets infinity
times the mean load. The L.R.C.-method gives a solution for
both cases, i.e. the L . R . C . - m e t h o d is a more general method.

For more than one response to be considered for the design,

the GRF-Method requires further comments concerning the
problem of which load is to be used for which response At
least, engineers in practice may have some difficulties in
understanding and accepting that the response rl to the load
pattern obtained with GRF(rk) may be greater than the correct
peak response rl obtained with GRF(rl). In opposite, the load
pattern pe(rk) defined by L.R.C. will always produce a
smaller response rl than p. (rl), i.e. using the L.R.C.-method
leads to a more comprehensible equivalent static load
concept.

The equivalent static load defined by using the G R F - M e t h o d

may lead to load distributions which lie outside the physical
boundaries of local pressures, while the load patterns
obtained with the L.R.C.-method lie exactly in the boundaries
of the probable greatest or smallest local pressures.

Beside these three more technical improvements, the main

advantage of the L.R.C.-method is the physical meaning of the
load patterns to be really occurring distributions. Since the
correlation analysis fades all parts of the fluctuating loads
which are not contributing to a specific response under
1758

consideration, a closer view to special load effects and a

deeper understanding becomes possible.

Compared to the time domain identification, the L.R.C.-method

is more effective in both the experimental and numerical
effort. The input data, i.e. mean values, standard deviations
and correlation coefficients of the load process, may be
estimated reliably just using one single wind tunnel
experiment, while the conditional sampling technique needs
several runs. The calculation of the responses and the extreme
pressure distribution using the extended formulas of the
covariance method instead of an expensive time-domain
calculation enhances an easy study of the influence of
different static systems.

Nevertheless, a direct application to codification seems to be

less practicable, since the solutions using the L.R.C.-method
formally are depending on the choice of the static system. So
in the worst case, in a code of practice for a given building
shape there would occur M sets of data for M differing static
systems. So again, this method seems to be less useful to
overcome the problem.

Fortunately, a consequent application of the method shows a

very small variation of the solutions for different static
systems. The example of the low-rise building has been subject
to an intensive study. Five geometries and two different
profile exponents have been investigated in a wind tunnel
experiment. As can be seen from figure 2, it is possible to
de1ne one enveloping load distribution for the identified
three distribution. 8o there is a well-founded hope of using
this method for defining load patterns for codification. This
has actually been done for a proposal for the Eurocode [3],
presenting a new load concept for low-rise buildings with flat
roofs (0o ~ ~ s I00).

In a further step, non-linear systems have been investigated,

leading to the understanding that for weak non-llnear systems,
e.g. geometrical non-llnearltles of a portal frame, the load
patterns identified by the L.R.C.-method or identified in the
time domain may be used for a realistic calculation of the non-
linear response [2,3].
 1759

-0.56
0.01 0.10 0.11 -__0"08--_--0"06 __0'07

0.22 q - 1.00

0.23 -' - 0.87

=l==
!

-0.65
0.22 L..
0.2t, -0.51
am=

0.19 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.25 0.21 -0.17

0.22 -'- H -0,50

0.23 ..,,
Blab

mmm
----
-0.40

0.23 " '0.28

025 - 0.19

-0.z,6

_ 007
~ ; =o~~ ~ :o~6- ~o~' - 'o~~ - -o~s
~ ~ -o.o~
-=u fT

" ' : 1 i - 7 j.o.,,

0.22 ~ ' ~ | -I "0.5 5

ou . ~ ~ -o.~.2

Figure 2: Identified extreme load patterns for three static

systems of the frame of a low-rise building hlb = 0.4
pressure coefficients normalized to the mean velocity
pressure at eaves' height
1760

3. E X A M P L E OF A P P L I C A T I O N

As a further example of practical a p p l i c a t i o n of the L.R.C.

method, the supporting arch of a roof has been investigated.
The roof spreads over an industrial waste disposal site and is
supported by 13 arches with a span of about 270 m and a height
of about 50 m. For the design, a c o m b i n a t i o n of stresses due to
dead load and wind load becomes decisive. Since the bending
moments of an arch are very sensitive to geometrical
imperfections, it is necessary to take into account the
deformations by a second-order theory. So the problem here is
to define a realistic spatial d i s t r i b u t i o n of the wind loads to
obtain a safe and economic design including non-linear effects.

In a first step of this analysis, the statistical p a r a m e t e r s of

the wind load, i.e. the mean values, the standard deviations
and the correlation coefficients of the inner and outer
pressure, have been obtained in a wind tunnel experiment (fig.
3). In this example, eight points on the outer and four points
on the inner surface respectively seem to c h a r a c t e r i z e the
pressure fields sufficiently. The time series of the pressures
have been saved for further investigations.

12o,25 / / /

y
~00,00

score l,t, O0
dimensions mm

Figure 3: Wind tunnel model of all industrial building's roof

Next, the designing engineer has to d e t e r m i n e which responses

are important for the design. In this example, the support
reactions, the bending moments and the axial forces, the
resulting stresses and deflections have been investigated. For
each of the responses rt the influence factors ark due to each
load pk = unity have to be calculated, e.g. by using a FE-
program.
 1761

Now, the c o r r e l a t i o n of the response r, and the load pk can be

c a l c u l a t e d from:

n
at I "Op k I
1=1
~rtP k = (6)
n n -if#
E a,t ~ attoOpn I# " Op k
I=i m=l

To obtain the extreme load d i s t r i b u t i o n s for each response rl

from eq. (5), the peak factor g has to be determined. In
accordance with the current practice in codification it has
been fixed in this example to g = 3.5.

Figure 4 shows the identified extreme load distributions for

the vertical support reaction and for the maximum b e n d i n g
moment compared to the mean load distribution. The respective
gust response factors are 1.9 for the support reaction and 3.0
for the bending moment.

.ram, ~ I U II m~...

.---r:o'~ .......... ~ ......... 2-~--..

.-~ ...oeOoI J f eeee
/"" .... /'.
/ ~ I I ~ !",,.,,'~
- _ /
Oool j ,

2'

[ .... 1
Figure 4: Extreme load d i s t r i b u t i o n for the vertical support
reaction and the m a x i m u m bending moment compared to
the mean load distribution, pressure coefficients
normalized to the meal~ velocity pressure at
building's height
1762

For the bending moment, the non-linear responses due to dead

load and wind load have been calculated using the L.R.C.-
pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n as well as a time domain c a l c u l a t i o n for
different levels of mean wind velocity. These results are
compared to the results obtained with the q u a s i - s t e a d y gust
model (gust velocity pressure times mean pressure coefficients)
and with the G R F - M e t h o d (mean velocity pressure times mean
pressure coefficients times GRF) (fig. 5).

The most important results are:

The current design practice making use of the steady gust

model underestimates the linear and non-linear responses
dramatically. A design based on this concept will be
definetly unsafe.

The G R F - M e t h o d which accurately produces the peak responses

for the linear system cannot be extended to n o n - l i n e a r
systems. The responses are u n d e r e s t i m a t e d by 20% - 25%.

The results obtained with the L . R . C . - M e t h o d and the results

obtained in the time domain are nearly the same with a
deviation of less than 0.5%

bending moment [MNm]

60 . . . .
1 env. gust 3 L.R.C.
50
2 GRF 0 time domain
40 ..................... IL

30

20

10

0
12.5 15 17.5 20 22,5 25 27.5 30 82.5
mean velocity at 10 m height [m/s]

Figure 5: Bending moment of the arch due to wind load and dead
load obtained by a second-order theory in d e p e n d e n c y
of the mean velocity at 10 m height. C o m p a r i s o n
between the load distribution obtained with the
steady gust model, the gust response factor concept,
the L.R.C. load model and a time history c a l c u l a t i o n
 1763

4. C O N C L U S I O N S

As a general conclusion, there are two points of main

importance:

With the L.R.C.-method, the d e s i g n i n g engineer as well as the

wind engineer has a powerful tool to describe r e a l i s t i c a l l y
wind load effects for a linear structure with a q u a s i - s t a t i c
behaviour.

For a n o n - l i n e a r structure which can be described as a

weakly n o n - l i n e a r structure, the results obtained with the
L . R . C . - m e t h o d are a very close a p p r o x i m a t i o n to n o n - l i n e a r
reality enabling a safe and economic design.

For practical application, there are m a i n l y three working

fields for the L.R.C.-Method, showing that this new p r o c e d u r e
could be a standard method of tomorrow:

Translating wind tunnel experiment to obtain equivalent

static loads

Defining extreme pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n s for codification

Estimating n o n - l i n e a r responses for weakly non-linear systems

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Part of this work was sponsered by the Deutsche

Forschlmgsgemeinschaft in the scope ef a special research
program 'Dynamics of Structures' This support is g r a t e f u l l y
acknowledged

REFERENCES

[1] Holmes, J.D.: Distribution of peak wind loads on a low-

rise building, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, Vol. 29, pp. 59-67

[2] Kasperski, M.: Extreme wind load distributions for linear

and n o n - l i n e a r design, Engineering Structures, to be
published in 1991

[3] Kasperski, M.: Windlasten an Hallenrahmen, Der Stahlbau,

to be p u b l i s h e d in 1991