Abstract
This study aims to estimate the wind loads acting on a tower structure by comparing and reviewing design codes and the results of wind tunnel tests. To this end, the modal properties of the tower were identified through short-term on-site measurements of the Busan Tower in Korea. The wind load acting on the tower was calculated using four design codes: KBC2009 (Korea), ASCE7-10 (USA), EUROCODE (Europe), and AIJ2004 (Japan). Additionally, force measurement tests and aeroelastic model tests were conducted for comparison. The results obtained indicated that the design wind velocity of each design code differed slightly, reflecting the individual characteristics of each country. The base shear force, base moment, and maximum displacement obtained from each design code were similar to those obtained in the wind tunnel tests. The magnitudes of the base moments and maximum displacements calculated by each design code were in the order of KBC > AIJ ≈ EUROCODE > ASCE7. The overall results indicate that each design code reasonably estimates the wind forces and the responses of the tower and also has an appropriate safety margin. The scatter in the predicted wind loads occurs primarily from the variations in the design wind velocity in the respective design codes.
Highlights
Recent global trends emphasize the significance and importance of city tourism, leading numerous cities to build observation towers
It is natural for engineers to wonder how different it will be if they apply a different design code from that of their country when designing a structure
Zhou et al [6] compared the along-wind loads on buildings using the international codes American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7–98 of USA, AS1170.2–89 of Australia, NBC1995 of Canada, AIJ-1993 of Japan, and EUROCODE-1993 of Europe. ey considered the definition of wind characteristics, mean wind loads, gust loading factor (GLF), equivalent static wind loads, and attendant wind load effects
Summary
Recent global trends emphasize the significance and importance of city tourism, leading numerous cities to build observation towers. Zhou et al [6] compared the along-wind loads on buildings using the international codes ASCE 7–98 of USA, AS1170.2–89 of Australia, NBC1995 of Canada, AIJ-1993 of Japan, and EUROCODE-1993 of Europe. Kwon and Kareem [7] examined the differences and similarities in the wind loads and their effects on buildings based on the international codes ASCE 2010 (USA), AS/NZ 2011 (Australia and New Zealand), AIJ 2004 (Japan), CNS 2012 (China), NBCC 2010 (Canada), EUROCODE 2010 (Europe), ISO 2009, and IWC 2012 (India). E wind tunnel test results were compared with the shear force and bending moment calculated based on major design codes from various countries. Through structural analysis, the wind loads, calculated by these codes, were applied to the tower structure to obtain the maximum displacement, which was compared with the aeroelastic model test results. Through structural analysis, the wind loads, calculated by these codes, were applied to the tower structure to obtain the maximum displacement, which was compared with the aeroelastic model test results. e design codes compared and reviewed were EUROCODE (Europe) [11], ASCE7-10 (USA) [12], AIJ2004 (Japan) [13], and KBC2009 (Korea) [14]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
