Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The determination of the fundamental period of a building is an integral part of result in significantly overly conservative
the lateral load calculation procedure in todays building codes; however, navigating results, as ASCE 7-05 allows the use of
your way through the twists and turns of the various assumptions and limits a properly substantiated analysis to
involved can become confusing rather quickly. Should the fundamental period be determine the fundamental building
E
calculated differently for the determination of wind and seismic loading? Are the period in lieu of the approximate
results of a computer based eigenvalue analysis always adequate? What damping empirical equations within certain
values should be assumed? The purpose of this article is to try to answer these and limits. A properly substantiated analysis
R
several other questions regarding code-based period determination techniques to can take many forms, such as the use of
help remove the confusion and allow designers to move forward. Rayleighs method. Most commercial
building software programs will quickly
U
and easily perform an eigenvalue analysis
The Fundamentals to determine the mode shapes and
ght seismic
T
The fundamental building period lating
p y rithe response coefficient, periods of a building, and practicing
is simply the inverse of the building CCos, for base shear determination using engineers will most likely use this
frequency at the lowest harmonic the equivalent lateral force procedure. method. It is important to note that the
C
easy right? Basically, every system has A flow-chart for navigating these provi- periods determined using an eigenvalue
a set of frequencies in which it wants sions is provided in Figure 1, and further analysis can be significantly longer than
e
U
to vibrate when set in motion by some discussion follows. those determined using the approximate
sort of disturbance (in building design, The most straightforward method for equations. This discrepancy is primarily
typically a seismic or wind event) determining the building period involves
R
based on the systems mass and stiffness the use of the empirical formulas for the model on which the eigenvalue analysis
characteristics. The shortest frequency calculation of the approximate building
T
the stiffening effect of the non-structural
a
is known as the natural frequency. The period, Ta, presented in Chapter 12 of
inverse of frequency is the period of ASCE 7-05. A subset of these formulas infill and cladding that is present in the
g
the system, and more specifically, the is displayed in the seismic section of Ta- actual building. Second, the analytical
S
inverse of the natural frequency is the ble 1 and plotted in Figure 2 (page 26). model does not generally include the
a
Codes and Standards
m
Determine
DetermineFundamental
FundamentalPeriod
PeriodT
TFor
ForUse
Use
quency of an earthquake is to the natu- mented buildings subjected In
InEquivalent
EquivalentLateral
ASCE
LateralForce
ForceProcedure
ProcedurePerPer
ASCE7-05
7-05Section
Section12.8.1.1
12.8.1.1
ral frequency of a building, the more to ground motion during
energy is introduced into the building seismic events such as the
structure. Buildings with shorter fun- San Fernando and Northridge
Calculate Approximate Period T
damental periods attract higher seismic earthquakes. The data was (Section 12.8.2.1)
a
22
TT ??(Section 12.8.2)
buildings that are more susceptible to 7-05 represent the lower (Section
actual12.8.2)
actual
effects, the fundamental period of the tal building period. Shorter Strength
Strengthororfor
forDrift?
Drift? (Section 12.8.6.2)
E
provided and designers typically used either
Steel Moment-Resisting Frames 0.028 0.8 Table 12.8-2 the approximate equations within the seismic
Concrete Moment-Resisting Frames 0.016 0.9 Table 12.8-2 section or the values provided by an automated
R
Eccentrically Braced Steel Frames 0.03 0.75 Table 12.8-2 eigenvalue analysis. Unfortunately, neither
of these solutions is the best option, and
All Other Structural Systems 0.02 0.75 Table 12.8-2
U
the first can actually be unconservative. As
WIND Approximate Fundamental Period Parameters previously discussed, the approximate seismic
h t equations are intentionally skewed towards
yrigx
T
Structure Type Ct Reference1
Cop Commentary Eqn.
shorter building periods. Thus for wind
design, where longer periods equate to higher
Steel Moment-Resisting Frames 0.045 0.8
C6-14
C
base shears, their use can provide potentially
Commentary Eqn. unconservative results. Also, the results of
Concrete Moment-Resisting Frames 0.023 0.9
C6-15 an eigenvalue analysis can yield building
e
U
Commentary Eqn. periods much longer than those observed in
All Other Structural Systems (h<400 ft) 0.013 1
n
C6-18 actual tests, thus providing potentially overly
i
conservative results. So what is a designer to
R
Commentary Eqn. do? The good news is that the ASCE 7-05
z
All Other Structural Systems (h>400 ft) 0.0067 1
C6-19 Commentary presents recommendations for
T a
Note 1: References are to ASCE 7-05 building natural frequencies to be used for
wind design. These recommendations are re-
g
Table 1: Approximate Fundamental Period Parameters.
S
written in the same form as the approximate
empirical equations provided in the seismic
Other (Wind)
5.5 Concrete-MRF (Seismic)
the level of damping has only a minor effect
5
Steel-MRF (Seismic)
for
on the overall base shear for wind design
E
4.5 a large majority of low and mid-rise building
4 structures. Where serviceability criteria gov-
3.5 ern, such as accelerations for tall buildings,
R
3 a more in-depth study of damping criteria is
2.5
EBSF (Seismic) typically warranted.
U
2
Low/Mid-Rise
1.5
ht Other (Seismic)
Figure 3 illustrates the effect of the funda-
yrig
T
1
0.5 Cop mental building period and damping values
0
on the gust factor for a representative 100-foot
C
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 x 100-foot building structure. The building
Building Height (Feet) footprint has a considerable effect on these
values, and buildings with larger footprints
e
U
Figure 2: Approximate Fundamental Period vs. Building Height. are less prone to dynamic effects. In gen-
n
eral, buildings less than 50 feet tall can be
i
concrete cracking and/or plastic hinging. provide values of damping for service and considered rigid no matter the lateral force
R
Again, the ASCE 7-05 Commentary pro- ultimate loads. The values provided vary
z
resisting system used. For this representative
vides guidance, suggesting a damping value greatly depending upon the resource and case, even at 150 feet tall, the overall effect
T a
of one percent be used for steel buildings the type of lateral force resisting system used of the building dynamic response on the
and two percent be used for concrete from a low of 0.5 percent to a high of 16 wind base shear (as predicted by the ratio of
g
S
buildings. The Commentary is explicit that percent or more. For simplicity, the author the flexible gust factor Gf to the rigid gust
these wind damping values are typically suggests using the recommended one per-
a
factor G = 0.85) is less than 15 percent for a
associated with determining wind loads cent and two percent values for steel and steel moment resisting frame and less than 5
for serviceability and simply states that concrete buildings, respectively, for both
m
percent for a concrete moment resisting
because the level of structural response in service and ultimate loads for two reasons. frame with the recommended damping val-
the serviceability and survivability states First, as buildings are subjected to ultimate ues. Stiffer structural systems, such as braced
is different, the damping values associated level forces, severe cracking of concrete sec- frames and shearwall buildings, exhibit
with these states may differ. tions and plastic hinging of steel sections even less dynamic response. It can safely be
So, what values are design engineers sup- have the dual effect of both increasing stated that for a large majority of building
posed to use for ultimate level (1.6W) wind damping but also softening the building and construction in the United States, which
loads? Several resources are available that increasing the fundamental building period. consists of low-rise and mid-rise construc-
tion, the effect of the building period on
1.500 wind base shears is minimal.
E
or torsional response will control the building ward with their implementation.
design. Again, the Commentary provides useful
R
insight into this issue including a web-site
(http://aerodata.ce.nd.edu/interface/
interface.html) that can be used to aid in the
References
U
determination of the effects of across-wind Amanat, K.M., & Hoque, E. (2006). A rationale for determining the natural period of RC
and torsional response in the preliminary building frames having infill. Engineering Structures, 28(4), 495-502.
t
righ of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
T
stages of design. Finally, the prescribed American Society
p y
forces in ASCE 7-05 are for regular-shaped CoStructures. ASCE/SEI 7-05. Reston, VA: Author.
Other
buildings only. A wind-tunnel analysis should
C
be performed for all unusually shaped Goel, R.K., & Chopra, A.K. (1997). Period formulas for moment-resisting frame buildings. J.
structures. It has also been the experience of Struct. Engrg., 123(11), 1454-1461.
the authors firm that a wind tunnel analysis is Goel, R.K., & Chopra, A.K. (1998). Period formulas for concrete shear wall buildings. J.
e
U
beneficial for buildings exceeding thirty stories Struct. Engrg., 124(4), 426-433.
n
in height in terms of accelerations, cladding
i
Robertson, L., & Naka, T. (1980). Tall Building Criteria and Loading (Monograph: Council on
R
pressures, and base overturning moments. Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Conclusion
z
Sataka, N., Suda, K., Arakawa, T., Sasaki, A., & Tamura, Y. (2003). Damping evaluation
T a
using full-scale data of buildings in Japan. J. Struct. Engrg., 129(4), 470-477.
In summary, the computation of the funda-
g
mental building period is an essential element Smith, B.S., & Coull, A. (1991). Tall Building Structures. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
S
- ,
m
a
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
. |