Professional Documents
Culture Documents
E
the American Standards Associations proposal to the 2000 International that the UBC provided from 1982 to
ASA Standard A58-1955, Minimum Building Code (IBC) to introduce a 1997 for the ANSI A58.1 documents.
R
Design Loads for Buildings and Other simplification of the American Society By basing the simplification on ASCE
Structures. This document later became of Civil Engineers ASCE 7-98 Method 2 7-02 Method 2, SEAW created a
American National Standards Institutes Analytical Procedure for Rigid Buildings methodology that could be used for the
U
ANSI A58.1-1972. The problem with of All Heights (Method 2). This effort vast majority of buildings being designed
these simple tables of pressures was that was unsuccessful. t in the United States today.
righ 2004, the SEAW
T
they didnt account for wind uplift or Between 1999yand
Co p
higher design pressures for components Wind Engineering Committee worked Basis of the Simplification
and cladding. In the mid-1970s, writers on the SEAW Commentary on Wind Code
C
ASCE 7 Method 2 is built around two
of the legacy codes started to transition Provisions (Commentary), which was
fundamental equations; the velocity
to more modern wind standards. ANSI published by the Applied Technology
pressure, qz, equation and the design wind
A58.1 was further updated in 1982. Council (ATC) as SEAW/ATC 60. This
e
U
pressure, p, equation:
The document then came under the document was the first comprehensive
n
purview of the American Society of commentary on wind code provisions qz = 0.00256 KzKztKdV2I
i
R
Civil Engineers (ASCE) as Minimum written by and for practicing structural
z
Design Loads for Buildings and Other engineers. Published in two volumes, pASCE = qGCp qi(GCpi)
T
Structures, ASCE 7. the first volume contains 17 chapters The velocity pressure equation has
Structural engineers on the west coast
wanted to maintain user-friendly wind
g
commentaries. The second volume
a
of explanations, illustrations, and been modified over the years to
introduce additional concepts, such as
S
design provisions, since for the majority contains worked out examples of wind the height and exposure factor, Kz and
a
of their designs, seismic forces for the load calculations for the main wind force the importance factor, I. More recent
overall lateral force resisting system were resisting system, and for components additions include the directionality
m
far greater than the wind forces predicted and cladding for six buildings which factor, Kd, and the topographic factor, Kzt.
by ANSI A58.1. In other words, for vary in height from one to seven stories; These two equations, when combined,
the majority of structures designed on for a freestanding sign; and for an open represent the Bernoulli Equation written
the west coast, seismic governed. The frame tower. These example problems for wind, which is an unwieldy equation
1982 Uniform Building Code (UBC) utilize every possible wind design option as follows:
contained the first step in the transition allowed in the 2000 or 2003 IBC or in
pASCE = 0.00256V2KdI [KzKztGCp Kzi
from using a table of pressures that ASCE 7-98 or 7-02, with the exception
Kzti (GCpi)]
varied with height to the more modern, of the wind tunnel option. The wind
but simplified, wind provisions. These tunnel option is, however, discussed in This expression is comparable to
provisions were updated in the 1994 volume one of ATC 60. the seismic equivalent lateral force
UBC. Structural engineers from the Concurrently, the SEAW Wind procedure. That is, it represents a
Structural Engineers Association of Engineering Committee worked on conservative expression of wind forces
California (SEAOC), the Structural SEAWs Handbook of a Rapid-Solutions for design of the structure and converts
Engineers Association of Oregon Methodology (RSM) for Wind Design, the chaotic nature of wind forces on
(SEAO), and the Structural Engineers which was also published by the Applied a building to an elastic basis. In a
similar way, the seismic equivalent
p qs Kz Crsm lateral force procedure presents a
generally conservative expression of
the dynamic nature of a buildings
-4.0
1 10 100 1000
-4.0
response to seismic inertial forces.
1- 6
13- 6
12- 0
13- 6
12- 0 1- 6
200
-3.5 -3.5 Nonetheless, this expression for wind
Height z or h above average level
-3.0 -3.0
forces on a building can be confusing
of adjoining ground (ft)
100
-1.5
-1.0
-1.5
-1.0
The RSM simplifies this cumbersome
1- 0
0.5 0.5
Reactions
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
1.0 1.0 where qs is the wind velocity pressure
WINDWARD 1.5 1.5
0.00256 V2.
LEEWARD
1 10 100 1000
Effective wind area (square ft)
To make this simplification, the Crsm
term was derived as follows:
Figure 1: The road map for calculating wind pressures.
E
is to algebraically add internal and external a reformatting of the ASCE 7 equations, between the natural frequency calculated by
pressures. Resulting charts and graphs of provides virtually the same values as Method approximate methods for seismic design and
R
Crsm values were adjusted to be generally 2, thus not penalizing the design. appropriate estimates of natural frequency
conservative. Addition of internal and external for wind design. Approximate equations
pressures isnt new to the RSM. ASCE-7 Natural Frequency of natural frequency developed for seismic
U
Method 1 Simplified Procedure (Method 1) The RSM is limited to rigid structures design tend to give higher estimates of the
also uses this formulation. Addition of internal because it utilizes a gust factor, G, of 0.85. natural frequency (lower estimates of the
ht building as A building
ASCE 7 definesraigrigid
T
and external pressures is appropriate for simple structures period), as this gives conservative
diaphragm type buildings where windward and p y
or otherCo structure whose fundamental approximations of the seismic base shear. For
leeward walls are tied together by members such
C
that internal pressures on these surfaces cancel Wind Direction Crest
each other out. In fact, this condition exists in downwind
Speedup Effects x x
the vast majority of structures engineers design.
e
upwind
U
z Escarpment
A notable exception is a type of rigid frame occur on the
upper half of
n
z Rid
building typically thought of as a pre-engineered ge
i
Ridges, Hills, & or H
R
metal building. This simplification allows for a Escarpments H ill NO
z
rapid and easy determination of the net effect of H/2 site Speedup
Effects
combined external and internal pressures, and
T a
eliminates up to four possible load cases. It also L
saves time by eliminating two-way interpolation L is assumed to be twice the width at the midheight of the slope.
g
S
of values for Cp between various shape factors Elevation Section of a Shallow Ridge, Hill, or Escarpment
a
and roof angles.
where 1/10 < H/L < 1/4
m
3
K1 values for steep slope H/L =1/4 K2 Multiplier K Multiplier
Exposure Continuous Flat Flat
Continuous x Ridges or Contiuous z Continuous Continuous
Topped Hill Topped Hill
Class Ridge Escarpment L Hills Escarpment L Ridge Escarpment
Ridge Hill
B 0.65 0.58 0.48 0.43 0.38 0 1 1 1 0 0 0.01
C 0.73 0.63 0.53 0.48 0.43 0.02 0.97 0.99 0.75 0.01 0 0.02
D 0.78 0.68 0.58 0.53 0.48 0.05 0.93 0.98 0.5 0.05 0.02 0.08
0.1 0.87 0.95 0.4 0.09 0.04 0.14
For shallow upwind slopes where H/L < 1/4 the speedup effect
0.2 0.73 0.9 0.3 0.17 0.09 0.22
is reduced from the steep slope values above, in proportion to its
steepness, and the appropriate K1 value is obtained by multiplying 0.3 0.6 0.85 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.37
the steep slope values above by 4(H/L). 0.4 0.47 0.8 0.18 0.34 0.24 0.41
Examples: 0.5 0.33 0.75 0.16 0.38 0.28 0.45
for 1/5 slope, K1 = 80% of the values above
0.6 0.2 0.7 0.14 0.43 0.33 0.5
for 1/6 slope, K1 = 67% of the values above
for 1/7 slope, K1 = 57% of the values above 0.7 0.07 0.65 0.12 0.49 0.38 0.55
for 1/8 slope, K1 = 50% of the values above 0.8 0 0.6 0.1 0.55 0.45 0.61
for 1/9 slope, K1 = 44% of the values above
1 0.5 0.08 0.62 0.53 0.68
for 1/10 slope, K1 = 40% of the values above
1.2 0.4 0.06 0.7 0.62 0.74
Expressed as an angle, this modifying coefficient would be 4(tan F), 1.4 0.3 0.04 0.79 0.73 0.82
where "F represents the angle of the slopefrom the horizontal. 1.6 0.2 0.02 0.89 0.85 0.9
1.8 0.1 0.01 0.94 0.92 0.95
Length L is very important for shallow slopes.
Height H is of minor importance, since it only 2 0 0 1 1 1
influences the K1 coefficient. x 4x x z
L K2 = 1 - 3L K2 = 1 - 2L K3 = e-6z/L K3 = e-8z/L K3 = e-5z/L
L
KT = [1 + K1 K2 K3]2 Equation 2-3
Figure 2: The simplified topographic factor for features with a slope of 5.7 through 14 degrees.
E
The RSM uses a velocity 7 or the RSM, torsion must be checked.
pressure exposure coefficient,
Kz, as does ASCE 7. To high-
R
Crsm for the Main Wind Force
light the basis of the Kz value,
and to make it easier and fast- Resisting System
U
er to determine the Kz value, The use of ASCE 7 Figure 6-6 to determine
the RSM plots out values the External Pressure Coefficient, Cp is
ht height and shows val-
rigversus not easy or intuitively obvious. Graders
T
p y ues for different exposures. of structural exams have observed that
Co
It also puts equations and experienced engineers frequently make
C
constants on the graph to mistakes when using this figure. The RSM
aid those who want to create provides four pages of charts to determine
spreadsheets. The graphs also Crsm values for windward and leeward walls
e
U
show where Case 2 controls and roofs, and for sidewalls of enclosed
n
for Exposure B and, thus, or partially enclosed buildings subjected
i
should eliminate the often- to ballooning (positive internal pressure)
R z
asked questions about Case 1 or deflation (negative internal pressure).
Figure 3: The Simplified Height and Exposure Factor and Case 2 for Exposure B. The RSM charts utilize graphic icons, in
T a
wind design, the opposite case exists. That addition to chart titles, to aid the user in
is, these higher estimates of the structures Torsion determining the correct values, thus saving
g
S
natural frequency can incorrectly categorize Wind torsional load cases were changed considerable time and greatly minimizing
a
very slender buildings as rigid, when they in ASCE 7-02. ASCE 7-05 did not change chances of error.
are, in fact, flexible. Alternate equations for continued on next page
natural frequency of various building types,
and comparison of results of these equations
to values used in other countries, are given
in the ASCE 7-05 commentary. When using
ASCE 7, or the RSM, an engineer needs
m
to determine whether the structure can be
categorized as rigid.
SDSU College of Arts and Letters | San Diego, California
Topographic Factor
or
direction
degrees
for wind
wind
direction war
Win Wall
d
=.9
7
MRH
C= C
The RSM provides 64 pages of
parallel to
Side .11 .05
a ridge C=
1.0 C=
h h Wall h
charts to determine Crsm values for L L for all
roof
L
.05
5
=
the most common configurations Shed or M ono-Slop e Gable or Hip Roofs slopes Shed or M ono-Slop e
.9 7C
C= Si
of walls and roofs. Wall charts are Windward Roof Surface TA < 100 ft2 Leeward Roof d
ew all
-1.4 dW
L
l
Le
e w B
E
them adjacent to each roof chart, so The shaded area h
reflects the range L=
2h
C = Crsm
wall pressure
Leeward Wall
pressure varies
-1.0 of values for the 4h
that users do not have to continually two windward
L L>
The Bold Lines are
coefficients. The
bold values & arrows
due to a reduction
of suction for long
roof load cases wind
flip back and forth. Users can -0.8
and ballooning h for BALLOONING reflect the ballooning buildings where L>B.
R
condition shown above, Crsm is evaluated in the
simply open the book to the -0.6 L The Light Lines are
for DEFLATION
and the light values are for
deflation.
chart below, and illustrated
by the two examples following.
appropriate roof chart, based on the -0.4 Leeward Wall Pressure Coefficient
INWARDS OUTWARDS PRESSURE (suction)
roof slope and configuration, and L=0
U
-0.2 narrow buildings wind B
L=B
have all the information needed for 0.0
all ro
ofs
L=2B
Ballooning
L<B
L=3B
both walls and roofs on two facing t
h
Inwards roof Crsm
L=4B L>4B
yrig
T
0.2 Deflation long buildings
pages. These charts are arranged L=5B wind B
Cop
L=6B
0.4
for either enclosed or partially .4 .2 0 .2 .4 .6
LEEWARD WALL Crsm values
.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
C
Narrow Long
wind wind
either ballooning or deflation. The 0.8 direction
Building
Leeward
direction Building
Leeward
e
U
on these charts, again aiding users 1.2
24 16 12 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 ie 4:12 slope
Crsm = .1 inwards for
a deflation condition
Crsm = .32 inwards for
a deflation condition
in determining correct values, thus 80 70 60 50 40 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 30 40 60 80 Crsm = .82 outwards for the Crsm = .61 outwards for the
n
ROOF SLOPE in degrees from the horizontal ballooning condition shown ballooning condition shown
i
saving considerable time and greatly
R
For roof pressure coefficient in the shaded area, where both are inward and outward,
minimizing chances of error. Crsm are indicated, both values should be used for assessing load effects
z
T a
SEAW Rapid-Solution
Methodology and the
g
S
2006 IBC:
The SEAW Wind Engineering Committee
is working on an update for its Commentary
a
and RSM to address changes in ASCE 7-05
and in the 2006 IBC, and to make minor
improvements in format and content. ASCE
7-05 made many changes to wind provisions,
m
but did not change the basic equations
of Method 2. The small changes made in
this section consist of minor tweaks to the
definition of exposure categories, a better
definition of how to estimate wind speeds
from regional climatic data, specification
of ANSI Standards for resistance to glazing
damage in wind-borne debris regions, and a
slight reduction in parapet Cp values for main
wind force resisting systems. These minor
changes do not affect, or invalidate, the use of
the RSM. They do make its use slightly more
conservative than ASCE 7-05 if the building
has a parapet due to the decrease in parapet
Figure 5: Crsm for Components and Cladding.
pressures in ASCE 7-05.
Major changes were made to the design of
open buildings and solid freestanding signs Ed Huston, P.E., S.E., has over 35 years of experience in structural design, evaluation,
and solid freestanding walls. However, the investigation, and code and standards development. Ed is a co-author of the Wind
vast majority of engineers design very few, if Commentary to the Uniform Building Code (1991 Edition & 1994 Editions), ATC-60,
any open buildings, or fences. Therefore, the SEAW Commentary on Wind Code Provisions, as well as the SEAW RSM-03, SEAWs
SEAW RSM can continue to be used with Handbook of a Rapid Solution Methodology for Wind Design. He also served on the Project
the 2006 IBC and ASCE 7-05 for the design Engineering Panel for the ATC Design Guide 2: Basic Wind Engineering of Low-Rise Buildings
of almost all structures, until new versions of and currently serves as President of the Board of Directors of NCSEA.
the documents are published, later this year
or early in 2008. Graphics have been published in the 2004 SEAWs Handbook of a Rapid-Solutions
Methodology for Wind Design SEAW RSM-03.