03 lect 21 towers

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

1/31

Towers, chimneys and masts

Wind loading and structural response

Lecture 21 Dr. J.D. Holmes

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

2/31


Slender structures (height/width is high)

Mode shape in first mode - non linear

Higher resonant modes may be significant

Cross-wind response significant for circular cross-sections

critical velocity for vortex shedding $ 5n1b for circular sections10 n1b for square sections

- more frequently occurring wind speeds than for square sections

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

3/31


Drag coefficients for tower cross-sections

Cd = 2.2

Cd = 1.2

Cd = 2.0

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

4/31


Drag coefficients for tower cross-sections

Cd = 1.5

Cd = 1.4

Cd $ 0.6 (smooth, high Re)

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

5/31


Drag coefficients for lattice tower sections

H = solidity of one face = area of members z total enclosed area

AustralianStandards

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Solidity Ratio H

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

Drag

coefficientCD (U=0

O)

e.g. square cross section with flat-sided members (wind normal to face)

includes interference and shielding effects between members

( will be covered in Lecture 23 )

ASCE 7-02 (Fig. 6.22) :

CD= 4H2 5.9H + 4.0

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

6/31


Along-wind response - gust response factor

The gust response factors for base b.m. and tip deflection differ -

because of non-linear mode shape

Shear force : Qmax = DQ. Gq

Bending moment : Mmax = DM. Gm

Deflection : xmax = Dx. Gx

The gust response factors for b.m. and shear depend on the height

of the load effect, z1 i.e. Gq(z1) and Gm(z1) increase with z1

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

7/31


Along-wind response - effective static loads

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Effective pressure (kPa)

Height(m

)CombinedResonant

Background

Mean

Separate effective static load distributions for mean, background

and resonant components (Lecture 13, Chapter 5)

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

8/31


Cross-wind response of slender towers

For lattice towers - only excitation mechanism is lateral turbulence

For solid cross-sections, excitation by vortex shedding is usually

dominant (depends on wind speed)

Two models : i) Sinusoidal excitation

ii) Random excitation

Sinusoidal excitation has generally been applied to steel chimneys where

large amplitudes and lock-in can occur - useful for diagnostic check ofpeak amplitudes in codes and standards

Random excitation has generally been applied to R.C. chimneys where

amplitudes of vibration are lower. Accurate values are required for design

purposes. Method needs experimental data at high Reynolds Numbers.

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

9/31



Sinusoidal excitation model :

Assumptions :

sinusoidal cross-wind force variation with time

full correlation of forces over the height

constant amplitude of fluctuating force coefficient

Deterministic model - not random

Sinusoidal excitation leads to sinusoidal response (deflection)

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

10/31



Sinusoidal excitation model :

Equation of motion (jth mode):

Jj(z) is mode shape

)(tQaKaCaG jjjj !

Gj is the generalized or effective mass = h

0

2

j dz(z)m(z)J

Qj(t) is the generalized or effective force = h

0j dz(z)t)f(z, J

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

11/31


Sinusoidal excitation model

Representing the applied force Qj(t) as a sinusoidal function of time, an

expression for the peak deflection at the top of the structure can be derived :

(see Section 11.5.1 in book)

!!h

0

2

j

2

h

0j

2

jj

2

h

0j

2

amax

dz(z)StSc4

dz(z)C

StG16

dz(z)bC

b

(h)y

J

JJNN

where Lj is the critical damping ratio for the jth mode, equal to jj

j

KG

C

2

)(zU

bn

)(zU

bnSt

e

j

e

s !!

2

a

j

b

m4Sc

T! (Scruton Number or mass-damping parameter)m = average mass/unit height

Strouhal Number for vortex shedding

ze = effective height (} 2h/3)

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

12/31


Sinusoidal excitation model

This can be simplified to :

For uniform or near-uniform cantilevers, F can be taken as 1.5; then k = 1.6

The mode shape Jj(z) can be taken as (z/h)F

2

max

.Sc.St4

k.C

b

y

TN!

where k is a parameter depending on mode shape

!

h

0

2

j

h

0j

dz(z)

dz(z)

J

J

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

13/31


Random excitation model (Vickery/Basu) (Section 11.5.2)

Assumes excitation due to vortex shedding is a random process

A = a non dimensional parameter constant for a particular structure (forcing terms)

In its simplest form, peak response can be written as :

Peak response is inversely proportional to the square root of the damping

21

2

2

)]1()4/[(

/

Lao y

y

KSc

A

b

y

!

T

lock-in behaviour is reproduced by negative aerodynamic damping

yL= limiting amplitude of vibration

Kao = a non dimensional parameter associated with aerodynamic damping

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

14/31


Random excitation model (Vickery/Basu)

Three response regimes :

Lock in region - response driven by aerodynamic damping

Lock-inRegime

TransitionRegime

ForcedvibrationRegime

2 5 10 20

0.10

0.01

0.001

Scruton Number

Maximum tip

deflection /diameter

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

15/31


Scruton Number

The Scruton Number (or mass-damping parameter) appears in peak response

calculated by both the sinusoidal and random excitation models

Sometimes a mass-damping parameter is used = Sc /4T = Ka =

2

abm4Sc T!

2

ab

m

Sc (or Ka) are often used to indicate the propensity to vortex-

induced vibration

Clearly the lower the Sc, the higher the value of ymax / b (either model)

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

16/31


Scruton Number and steel stacks

Sc (or Ka) is often used to indicate the propensity to vortex-induced

vibration

e.g. for a circular cylinder, Sc > 10 (or Ka

> 0.8), usually indicates low

amplitudes of vibration induced by vortex shedding for circular cylinders

American National Standard on Steel Stacks (ASME STS-1-1992) provides

criteria for checking for vortex-induced vibrations, based on Ka

A method based on the random excitation model is also provided in ASME

STS-1-1992 (Appendix 5.C) for calculation of displacements for design

purposes.

Mitigation methods are also discussed : helical strakes, shrouds, additionaldamping (mass dampers, fabric pads, hanging chains)

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

17/31


Helical strakes

For mitigation of vortex-shedding induced vibration :

Eliminates cross-wind vibration, but increases drag coefficient and along-wind

vibration

h/3

h0.1b

b

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

18/31


Case study : Macau Tower

Concrete tower 248 metres (814 feet) high

Tapered cylindrical section up to 200 m (656 feet) :

16 m diameter (0 m) to 12 m diameter (200 m)

Pod with restaurant and observation decks

between 200 m and 238m

Steel communications tower 248 to 338 metres (814 to 1109 feet)

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

19/31


aeroelastic

model

(1/150)


8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

20/31



Combination of wind tunnel and theoretical

modelling of tower response used

Effective static load distributions distributions of mean, background and resonant wind loads

derived (Lecture 13)

Wind-tunnel test results used to calibrate

computer model

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

21/31


Length ratio Lr= 1/150

Density ratio Vr= 1

Velocity ratio Vr= 1/3

Wind tunnel model scaling :


8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

22/31


Bending stiffness ratio EIr= VrVr2 Lr

4

Axial stiffness ratio EAr= VrVr2 Lr

2

Use stepped aluminium alloy spine to model

stiffness of main shaft and legs

Derived ratios to design model :


8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

23/31


0

50

100

150

200

250300

350

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5Vm/V240

Full-scaleHeight(m)

Wind-tunnel

AS1170.2

Macau Building Code

Mean velocity

profile :


8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

24/31


MACAU TOWER - Turbulence

Intensity Profile

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3Iu

Full-scale

Height(m)

Wind-tunnelAS1170.2Macau Building Code

Turbulence

intensity

profile :


8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

25/31


MACAU TOWER

0.5% damping

-500

0

500

1000

15002000

0 20 40 60 80 100

Full scale mean wind speed at 250m (m/s)

R.m.s. Mean

Maximum Minimum


Wind tunnel test results - along-wind b.m. (MN.m) at 85.5 m (280 ft.)

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

26/31

MACAU TOWER

0.5% damping

-2000

-1500-1000

-500

0

500

1000

15002000

0 20 40 60 80 100

Full scale mean wind speed at 250m (m/s)

R.m.s. Mean

Maximum Minimum



Wind tunnel test results - cross-wind b.m.(MN.m) at 85.5 m (280 ft.)

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

27/31


Along-wind response was dominant

Cross-wind vortex shedding excitation not strong because

of complex pod geometry near the top Along- and cross-wind have similar fluctuating components

about equal, but total along-wind response includes mean

component


8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

28/31


At each level on the structure define equivalent wind loads

for :

mean wind pressure

background (quasi-static) fluctuating wind pressure

resonant (inertial) loads

These components all have different distributions

Computer model calibrated against wind-tunnel results

Combine three components of load distributions forbending moments at various levels on tower


Along wind response :

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

29/31


cracked concrete 5% damping

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60 80 100Full scale mean wind speed at 250m (m/s)

Along-wind

bending

moment

at 200

metres

(MN.m)

Mean Maximum


Design graphs

8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

30/31


Design graphs

Macau Tower Effective static loads

(s=0 m)

Umean= 59 7m/s; 5% damping

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 100 200

Load (kN/m)

Height(m)

Mean

Background

Resonant

Combined


8/3/2019 03 Lect 21 Towers

31/31

End of Lecture 21

John Holmes225-405-3789 [email protected]

03 lect 21 towers

Documents