wind load design of hangar-type closed steel structures with … · 2017-05-29 · this study...

TEM Journal. Volume 6, Issue 2, Pages 336-341, ISSN 2217-8309, DOI: 10.18421/TEM62-19, May 2017.

336 TEM Journal – Volume 6 / Number 2 / 2017

Wind Load Design of Hangar-Type Closed

Steel Structures with Different Roof Pitches

Using Abaqus CAE Software

Aybike Özyüksel Çiftçioğlu 1, Sadık Alper Yıldızel

1,

Mehmet Sinan Yildirim 1, Erkan Doğan

1

1Manisa Celal Bayar University,Engineering Faculty, Manisa, Turkey

Abstract – Structures convert the kinetic energy

available in the air into potential energy which is in the

form of pressure and suction forces reducing or fully

stopping its motion. The potential impact of the wind

depends on the geometric properties and pertinacity of

a building, the angle of the wind flow, its strength and

velocity. Design gains importance for tall buildings

against the impact of the resonance along with the

force based on pressure. Relevant calculations are

made in Turkey based on the TS 498 Wind Load

Velocity Criterion and this standard is currently being

updated.

This study develops the wind load design of hangar-

type closed steel structures with different roof pitches

using Abaqus CAE software.

Keywords – Steel, steel structures, wind, wind load.

1. Introduction

The use of iron and steel goes back to 5,000 years,

yet the area of use has been limited only to weaponry

and gears until the beginning of the 18th century [1].

With the production of bloom introduced in England

by 1779, cast iron was used in the bridge building

projects as a structural element for the first time

(Coalbrookdale Bridge, Figure 1) [2].

DOI: 10.18421/TEM62-19 https://dx.doi.org/10.18421/TEM62-19 Corresponding author: Sadık Alper Yıldızel, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Engineering Faculty, Manisa, Turkey Email: [email protected]

© 2017 Aybike Özyüksel Çiftçioğlu et al; published by UIKTEN. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. The article is published with Open Access at www.temjournal.com

Figure 1. Coalbrookdale Bridge, UK

With the development of Bessemer, Siemens –

Martin and Thomas methods, cast steel production

was started and cast steel has been the most

commonly used steel product since the beginning of

the 19th century per the literature. As steel structures

are built rather fast, they had been more frequently

preferred in the aftermath of the WWI and steel has

become the commonly used structural element since

the WWII [3,4]. Design criteria has been updated per

the developments and shaped the ones we use today.

The loads to be considered for steel structures can be

classified under Dead Load, Live Load, Horizontal

Load, and others (Table 1) [5].

Table 1. Load Types for Steel Construction Design

Dead Load Weight of floor systems, beam systems,

wall systems, etc.

Live Load Furniture loads, human loads, etc.

Horizontal

Load

Earthquake load, wind load, fluid load,

etc.

Other Loads Warping and swelling loads, explosion

load, etc.

One of the load types involved in steel construction

design, the wind load is commonly recognized as a

https://dx.doi.org/10.18421/TEM62-19

https://dx.doi.org/10.18421/TEM62-19

[email protected]

http://www.temjournal.com/


TEM Journal – Volume 6 / Number 2 / 2017. 337

horizontal load. It might be considered as a static

load if the structure in question does not yield

significant values for this kind of a load. Wind results

in pressure in the direction of the impact surface

while resulting in suction force on the opposite

direction. The velocity of the wind increases to a

point due to the height of the structure. Wind load

must be taken into consideration as the highest value

on each side and it depends on the geometrical

structure of the building [6]. Wind loads in Turkey

are calculated using the TS 498 standard [5].

However, as the structures such as bridges, cranes,

tall flues, beacons, etc., are governed by specific

regulations, it is not possible to make calculations

using the TS 498 standard. Per this regulation, the

resultant of the wind load on the roof is calculated

using the equation (1).

W = Cf x q x A (1) [4]

In this equation, “Cf” is the aerodynamic load

coefficient, “q” is the suction force, and A is the

surface area in question. Table 2. shows the suction

and velocity of the wind per the height of the roof. It

is important to have the support of the Regional

Directorate of Meteorology to minimize the

calculation errors in the determination of q value for

regions exposed to higher wind velocity.

Table 2. Suction and Wind Speed Values Based on Height

Above Ground Level [TS 498 Chart-5]

Height Above

Ground Level (m)

Wind Speed

(km/hour)

q

(kN/m²)

0-8 28 0,5

8-20 36 0,8

21-100 42 1,1

> 100 46 1,3

It is important to take heed of wind loads which will

be increased due to icing of the surfaces for steel

construction projects which involves slim type

structural steel [7].

Another important aspect of the wind load

calculations is the vortex load resulting from the

vortex passage [8]. The air flow caused by the wind

results in vortexes while passing through the sides of

a building (Figure 2.). As vortexes are variable in

their nature, the resulting loads are also variable and

have an impact perpendicular to the direction of the

wind flow. Nevertheless, as these loads impact a very

specific and narrow area, they can be accounted to as

sinusoidal load [9,10].

Figure 2. Creation of Vortex Load [11]

2. Modelling

Wind speeds of 28m/s, 36 m/s, 42 m/s, and 46

m/s were examined on steel structures with 30o and

45o roof pitches using the Abaqus CAE software

[12]. The height above ground level was taken 7m,

20m, 100m and 105m for each trial. The winds with

wind speed of 28m/s, 36 m/s, 42 m/s, and 46 m/s

were converted into suction value, q (kN/m²), using

the “q=V²/ 1600” equation. The results obtained are

converted into distributed load using the equations in

the Figure 3. and the results are given in Table 3.

Figure 3. TS 498 11/3 Figure-1

Table 3. q Values used in the Abaqus CAE software

h

(m)

q1

(kN/m²)

q2 (30°)

(kN/m²)

q2 (45°)

(kN/m²)

q3

(kN/m²)

q4

(kN/m²)

8 0.392 0.098 0.22 -0.196 -0.196

20 0.648 0.162 0.3629 -0.324 -0.324

100 0.882 0.2205 0.494 -0.441 -0.441

105 1.058 0.2645 0.5924 -0.529 -0.529

The reason behind the height above ground level

values was that they make it possible for a reliable

comparison with the stress values available in the TS



498 standard (Table 2.). Results obtained from the

analysis were then compared with the TS 498

standard. The highest q1 stress was taken as a basis

because of this comparison.

2.1. Analysis A (the hangar with 30° roof pitch and

8m height above ground level):

Based on the q1 value which is the highest stress

value obtained from the hangar modelled to have 30°

roof pitch, the value obtained was 0,275 kN/m²

(Figure 4.).

Figure 4. The structure with 30° roof pitch and 8m height

above ground level

Figure 5. shows the change in the stress over time.

Figure 5. Analysis A, Graph of Stress vs. Time

2.2. Analysis B (the structure with 45° roof pitch

and 8m height above ground level):



roof pitch, the value obtained was 0.303 kN/m²

(Figure 6.).

Figure 6. The structure with 45° roof pitch and 8m height

above ground level


Figure 7. Analysis B, Graph of Stress vs. Time

2.3. Analysis C (the structure with 30° roof pitch

and 20 m height above ground level):




(Figure 8.).

Figure 8. The structure with 30° roof pitch and 20 m

height above ground level




Figure 9. Analysis C, Graph of Stress vs. Time

2.4. Analysis D (the structure with 45° roof pitch





(Figure 10.).





2.5. Analysis E (the structure with 30° roof pitch





(Figure 12.).





2.6. Analysis E (the structure with 30° roof pitch





(Figure 14.).








2.7. Analysis G (the structure with 30° roof pitch





(Figure 16.).






2.8. Analysis F (the structure with 45° roof pitch





(Figure 18.).








3. Conclusion

The following findings were obtained in the light of the outcomes of the analysis conducted:

The stress value results obtained from the Abaqus

CAE software are significantly different from the

ones obtained using the TS 498 standard.

Analysis results reveal the necessity to update the

relevant standards immediately.

It is possible to implement corrections updating the

standard in question to eliminate this difference while

saving from materials in a great extent using these

updated calculation methods.

The necessity of double checking the calculations

made in accordance with this standard against

Abaqus CAE and other similar programs for each

structure is obvious.

References

[1]. Schubert, H. R. (1957). History of the British iron &

steel industry.

[2]. Cossons, N., & Trinder, B. S. (2002). The iron bridge:

Symbol of the Industrial Revolution. Phillimore &

Company.

[3]. Chen, W. F., & Duan, L. (2014). Bridge Engineering

Handbook: Superstructure Design. CRC press.

[4]. Holmes, J. D. (2015). Wind loading of structures.

CRC press.

[5]. Turkish Standards (1997). “Calculation Values for the

Loads to be Considered in the Design of Structural

Elements (TS 498 – 1997)”, Turkish Standards Institute,

Ankara

[6]. Turkstra, C. J., & Madsen, H. O. (1980). Load

combinations in codified structural design. Journal of the

Structural Division, 106(12), 2527-2543.

[7]. Barone, M., Paquette, J., Resor, B., & Manuel, L.

(2012, January). Decades of wind turbine load simulation.

In 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the

New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition (p. 1288).

[8]. Dyrbye, C., & Hansen, S. O. (1996). Wind loads on

structures.

[9]. Whale, J., Anderson, C. G., Bareiss, R., & Wagner, S.

(2000). An experimental and numerical study of the vortex

structure in the wake of a wind turbine. Journal of Wind

Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 84(1), 1-21.

[10]. Vickery, P. J., Lin, J., Skerlj, P. F., Twisdale Jr, L.

A., & Huang, K. (2006). HAZUS-MH hurricane model

methodology. I: Hurricane hazard, terrain, and wind load

modelling. Natural Hazards Review, 7(2), 82-93.

[11]. İstanbul Regulations for Wind Loads on Tall

Buildings, Version V, (August 2009)

[12]. Abaqus 6.11 Documentation User’s Manual Technol.

2010; 2, 16-21.

wind load design of hangar-type closed steel structures with … · 2017-05-29 · this study...

Documents