A new approach of steel frame design under dynamic wind load

M. Kasperski*, H. Koss**, H.-J. Niemann* * Ruhr-University Bochum Faculty of Civil Engineering 44780 Bochum Germany ** Danish Maritime Institute Hortekrsvej 99 2800 Lyngby Denmark michael.kasperski@aib.ruhr-uni-bochum.de

Introduction Designing a structure like a portal frame of an industrial low-rise building is an iterative optimisation process. In today's design practice, the designing engineer takes from codes or standards the design values for the external loads, for instance the wind load distribution and the appropriate value of the wind velocity pressure. Depending on the climate at the building site, a design value of the snow load has to be taken into account, too. Step 2 is to choose the basic layout of the structure (e.g. hinged or fixed support) and to make a choice on the individual cross-sections. This step leads to a further load contribution which is the dead load of the load bearing structure. An additional dead load contribution has to be introduced from the roof cladding system. The further steps depend on the design procedure chosen by the designing engineer. In the European Union, the Eurocode for steel structures [1] allows three different design approaches, corresponding to three different ultimate limit states. The first ultimate limit state is the exceedence of the yielding stress (elastic-elastic design), the second the exceedence of the plastic carrying capacity of the cross section (elasticplastic design), the third the exceedence of the plastic carrying capacity of the whole structure (plastic-plastic design). As a matter of fact, the economy of the design increases the more the plastic carrying capacity is exploited. If the static elastic or plastic analysis of the actual structure leads to an exceedence of the specified limit state, the cross sections have to be increased and a further analysis has to be performed until that state is reached where the specified limit state is not exceeded under the specified load combinations. In regard to wind loads, this design procedure includes two short-comings. The wind induced loads are fluctuating stochastic loads, which means the amplitudes of the wind loads are rapidly changing in space and time. The load distribution at a specific time may vary considerably from that distribution specified in a code or standard. Then, it is obviously not clear, if the design wind load distribution specified in the code is the decisive distribution leading to the design-decisive non-linear effects. Secondly, the wind load may induce dynamic effects in terms of additional inertial and damping forces. Then, a static analysis of the structural behaviour is inadequate. For both reasons, the actual design procedure seems to be doubtful. Non-linear structural behaviour under dynamic wind loads The analysis of the non-linear structural behaviour under dynamic wind loads has to be performed in the time domain. The load input in terms of time histories of the wind induced loads can be provided by wind tunnel experiments in an appropriately scaled boundary layer flow. These time series are usually normalised by a mean wind velocity pressure at a specified reference height, e.g. eaves height h. They can be 'translated' to any mean wind speed levels by simply multiplying with the required mean wind velocity pressure. Additionally, a time scale has to be introduced. This time scale depends on the geometric scale of the wind tunnel tests and the velocity

scale, i.e. the ratio of the full-scale mean wind speed and the mean wind speed used in the wind tunnel tests:

h v T = wind tunnel full - scale h full -scale v wind tunnel

(1)

Since the wind load process is a complex stochastic process, extremes observed in a single experiment or 'storm' have a distinct stochastic character, too. Then, a larger number of independent runs is required to obtain a sufficient high statistical stability. To analyse the non-linear structural behaviour in the time domain, a software package has been developed which takes into account the opening and closing of plastic hinges [2]. Each set of time series, which may be understood in the following as independent storms, is analysed. Specifying a storm intensity, i.e. a specific mean wind speed in full-scale, the following information may be sampled for each storm: for each node the opening and closing rate of a plastic hinge, the angle of permanent plastic rotation in the respective node, and for the complete structural system the information if a chain of plastic hinges has been obtained. Additionally, the failure paths may be sampled. In regard to the design of the structure, two ultimate limit states are of special interest: 'obtaining a first plastic hinge' and 'obtaining a chain of plastic hinges'. The analysis of each storm then simply leads to yes or no, or 1 and 0 for a further numerical postprocessing of the information. Summing up all '1's over the N independent storms and normalising with the total number of storms leads to a fair estimate of the exceedence probability of the specific limit state in a single storm event having the specified intensity. Varying in the next steps the level of the mean wind speed from very low to very high values allows to obtain a detailed trace of the exceedence probability of a specified limit state. Figure 1 shows the example of a typical trace of the cumulative exceedence probability and the corresponding density. The latter with its 'doublehump' form indicates that more than one failure path is contributing to the exceedence probability.
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 mean wind velocity pressure [kN/m] density cumulative probability of obtaining a chain of plastic hinges

Figure 1: Typical trace of the exceedence probability of a limit state

A further step is needed to be able to understand the information provided by this trace. If the trace of the exceedence probabilities of the specified ultimate limit state is weighted with the probability of the respective mean wind speed level and integrated over the whole range of the wind speeds, the overloading risk in regard to wind loads is obtained. This number can be used as an indicator if or if not a design is appropriate. Mathematically correct, the above described step is a convolution as follows:

p overload =

v=0

f (v) F
v

uls (v) dv

(2)

f v ( v) - probability density of the mean wind speed at the building site Fuls ( v) - exceedence probability of the specified ultimate limit state for a mean wind speed level v A reasonable value of the target overloading risk is for instance specified in the Australian Standard with a value of 5% in 50 years. The design wind loads specified in the Eurocode are basically leading to a similar value. EC 1 [3] specifies the design wind loads by a characteristic value of the mean wind speed with an exceedence probability of 0.02 per year (reference wind speed) and a partial factor of 1.5. If the characteristics of the extreme value distribution of the mean wind speeds are known, it is possible to plot in the diagram of puls versus v (exceedence probability of the ultimate limit state versus the mean wind speed, fig. 1) an area which marks the 'target' for the traces. It is convenient to use for such a comparison a reduced velocity axis, where the actual mean wind speeds are normalised with the reference wind speed. If a trace lies in this area, the design target in terms of the overloading risk is met, if the trace is positioned right from this area (in the region of higher wind speeds), the design is over-conservative, if the trace lies left (in the region of lower wind speeds) the design is not safe enough. Influence of the choice of static system Mainly to demonstrate this procedure, in the following, a Gumbel distribution is assumed for the extreme value distribution of the mean wind speeds induced by strong storms. As typical coefficient of variation, a value of 12.5% is introduced. This model is more or less corresponding to the wind climate in Western Europe. We are now able to investigate the influence of the design method and the choice of the static system. The frames are designed for the loads as specified in EC 1, applying in the first step the elastic-elastic design procedure. To avoid at this stage any bias from dynamic effects, the non-linear analysis is performed neglecting inertia and damping forces (quasi-static analysis). In figure 2, the traces for the ultimate limit state 'obtaining a first plastic hinge' are compared to the 'target area' as described above. This analysis differentiates two basic types of portal frames. The heavier one is obtained if considerable snow loads have to be taken into account (like e.g. in Germany, Canada etc.). Then, the roof structure will lead to a dead load contribution of 0.5 kN/m in this example. The lighter roof construction is obtained if no snow loads have to be taken into account (e.g. Australia and Southern U.S.A.). The dead load contribution of this roof construction is introduced with a value of 0.2 kN/m.

heavier roof construction

lighter roof construction

1: hinged

2: fixed

3: three-pin-jointed

Figure 2: Traces of the exceedence probability of ultimate limit state 1 ('obtaining a first plastic hinge') for a heavier and a lighter portal system pre-designed applying the elastic-elastic design and the loads of EC 1 Three different static systems are investigated: a portal frame with a hinged support (system 1), a portal frame with a fixed support (system 2) and a three-pin-jointed portal frame (system 3). The traces in figure 2 proof, that the choice of the static system is able to influence considerably the overloading risk - and consequently the reliability of the structure. The design procedure of the Eurocode leads to results 'on the safe side' for the lighter roof construction. However, the design is over-conservative for the hinged and the fixed frame. For the heavier roof, the differences between the static systems are larger. It is worth mentioning that one trace lies in the 'unsafe' region, i.e. the portal frame is considerably under-designed.

heavier roof construction

lighter roof construction

Figure 3: Traces of the exceedence probability of ultimate limit state 1 ('obtaining a first plastic hinge') for a heavier and a lighter portal system pre-designed applying the elastic-plastic design EC, influence of the static system Applying in the next step the elastic-plastic design procedure, i.e. exploiting the plastic carrying of the cross-section, leads to the results shown in figure 3. All traces

are shifted to the left, i.e. to lower wind speeds. Trace 3 for the heavier roof cannot plotted, since the frame is exceeding the ultimate limit state for each wind speed, i.e. under the design snow load, this frame is not able to withstand any additional wind load. This fact of a missing appropriate wind load case for the heavier roof type has been reported before in [4]. Dynamic effects The discussion so far does not include the dynamic effects in terms of additional inertia and damping forces. As a matter of fact, it has never been proven that portal frames of low-rise buildings can be treated as structures which are insensitive to wind induced vibrations. On the contrary, a linear analysis of the dynamic structural behaviour reveals that two vibration modes may be sensitive to wind induced vibrations. The lowest natural frequency usually corresponds to a sway mode, the second corresponds to a vibration of the roof. The typical range for the sway mode frequency is 0.5 Hz to 1.5 Hz, the natural frequency of the roof vibration lies between 1.5 Hz to 3.0 Hz. Both frequencies lie in the range of the excitation induced by the natural wind. Consequently, a design procedure neglecting dynamic effects remains doubtful. Basically, additional dynamic effects will tend to shift the trace to lower wind speeds. Only to get an idea on the extent of the dynamic influence, in table 1, some results of a quasi-static analysis and a full dynamic analysis are compared. For simplicity, this comparison is based on the 50%-fractile of the respective traces. The velocity levels are given as reduced velocities, i.e. the respective mean wind speeds are divided by the reference wind speed. For the heavier roof construction, the snow load has been set to zero, i.e. the smallest dynamic effects are analysed. For higher snow loads, the natural frequency of the system will become smaller and the dynamic contribution will therefore increase. Table 1: Reduced velocity values of the 50%-fractile of the traces of the exceedence probabilities for two ultimate limit state 1 (u.l.s. 1: obtaining of a first plastic hinge, u.l.s. 2: obtaining of a chain of plastic hinges), quasi-static and full dynamic non-linear analysis for two roof types, pre-design elastic-elastic heavier roof u.l.s. 1 quasi-static full dynamic 1.58 0.79 u.l.s. 2 1.93 1.20 lighter roof u.l.s. 1 1.27 0.94 u.l.s. 2 1.45 1.14

For both roof types, the dynamic effects are immense. A comparison in terms load levels uses the squared values of table 1 (to obtain velocity pressures). For the lighter roof, the bearable 'wind load' is reduced to 60 %, for the heavier roof to less than 40%. A new design approach The above discussions verify the need of a new approach for the non-linear dynamic elastic or plastic design of steel portal frames. Strictly speaking, a full probabilistic

analysis is required, taking into account the randomness of all contributing variables like e.g. the cross section area and plastic section modulus, the yielding stress and of course the loads. In the Eurocode 1, the target reliability for the ultimate limit state is specified as 10-6 per year or 510-5 in a life-time of 50 years. A less strict approach is proposed here and is based on the overloading risk in the projected life-time. This overloading risk should be analysed in regard to an overloading due to wind and snow. As target, an overloading risk of 5% in the life-time is reasonable. If the reliability target is reduced to 10-5, the corresponding value for the overloading risk should be 15%. Introducing the snow load as an additional random variable requires a further step of analysis. The non-linear calculations to obtain the trace of the exceedende probability of a specific ultimate limit state has to be repeated for different snow load amplitudes, thus leading to a family of traces (figure 4).
1.0 1.9 0.9 rel. frequency of obtaining a plastic hinge 0.8 0.7 1.4 0.6 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 0.0 0.8

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

mean wind velocity pressure [kN/m]

Figure 4: Typical family of traces of the exceedence probability of a limit state The arrangement of these traces reflects the structural behaviour under different combinations of amplitudes of the wind and snow load. While for lower snow load levels the first plastic hinge occurs mainly in the upwind corner, higher snow loads shift this 'critical point' to the downwind corner of the frame. The overloading risk finally is obtained from a convolution as follows:

p overload =

v=0 s=0

f( v, s) F(v, s) ds dv

(3)

f ( v, s) - joint probability density of wind and snow F( v, s) - exceedence probability of a specific ultimate limit state for the actual combination of mean wind speed v and snow load s

If the extremes of the snow loads will never occur simultaneously with extreme wind speeds - as is the case for most building sites in Germany - the analysis is considerably simplified. The overloading risk is obtained as follows: p overload ( v, s) = 1 - (1 p overload ( v) )(1 p overload (s) ) (4)

The overloading risk in regard to snow loads is obtained as the exceedence probability of the snow load amplitude leading to the respective ultimate limit state, i.e. the corresponding overloading risk is obtained as:
s uls

p overload (s) = 1 -

s=0

f (s) ds = 1 - F (s
s s

uls )

(5)

f s (s) - probability density of the snow load amplitudes Fs (s) - cumulative probability of the snow load amplitudes suls - snow load level leading to the specified ultimate limit state The overloading risk in regard to wind load is obtained - as already pointed out above - as follows:

p overload (v) =

v=0

f (v) F
v

uls (v) dv

(6)

f v ( v) - probability density of the mean wind speed at the building site Fuls ( v) - exceedence probability of the specified ultimate limit state for a mean wind speed level v For the 'optimisation' step, the obtained result of the overloading risk has to be compared to the target. If the overloading risk is considerably smaller (say by a factor larger than 2), a further reduction of the cross section is recommended. For the general case of a truly mixed extreme snow-wind climate, a new set of figures corresponding to figure 4 is required. If the extremes of snow and wind are mutually excluding each other, only one trace corresponding to figure 1 has to be calcutaled. For an obtained overloading risk larger than the target (say by a factor of 1.5), the cross section has to be increased. This iteration-step has to be repeated until the actual overloading risk is close enough to the target overloading risk. Conclusions For steel portal frames of industrial low-rise buildings, a non-linear dynamic analysis of the structural behaviour has been performed. Non-linear effects due to plastification of the cross section are modelled as the opening or closing of plastic hinges. The dynamic analysis is based on a larger number of time series obtained in an appropriately scaled wind tunnel experiment. The analysis reveals two shortcomings of today's design practice: Firstly, significant inconsistencies are obtained in regard to the structural reliability for different types of structures (heavier or lighter

roof) and for different static systems. Secondly, considerable dynamic effects which have to be expected for strong storms are not covered. A new design approach is proposed using as main tool the non-linear analysis. As basic result, the traces of the exceedence probability of specified ultimate limit states are obtained. A convolution of these traces with the respective (joint-)probability density of the wind speeds or snow load amplitudes leads to the overloading risk in regard to wind and / or snow load. As appropriate target of overloading risk a value of 5% in the life-time of structure is recommended. References [1] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures ENV 1993, 1997 H. Koss DRAFS - Dynamic Reliability Analysis of Frame Structures - Version 1.3 Internal Report, Aerodynamik im Bauwesen, 2000 European Committee for Standardization Basis of Design and Action on Structures ENV 1991, 1995 M. Kasperski Design wind loads for low-rise buildings: A critical review of wind load specifications for industrial buildings Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 61 (1996) pp 169-179

[2]

[3]

[4]