INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Jobs

MWFRS vs C&C

MWFRS vs C&C

(OP)
I have a weather/sound enclosure for a piece of rooftop equipment that I am running a finite element model for 150 mph winds (Miami-Dade). The enclosure is 25 ft by 9 ft in plan and stands about 10 ft high. (Attached is a picture of my NASTRAN model) It is made of 5052 H32 aluminum and I am using formed angle 8 gage steel to brace the panels. I originally applied the wind loads as a MWFRS where we have positive pressures on the windward and suction (negative) pressures on the leeward walls. Sideward and roof uplift pressures were also applied. There has been debate regarding this methodologyand may not be accepted by local jurisdictions because this enclosure is considered a component. Therefore, the design methodology should be done for Component and cladding which are at higher pressures than MWFRS.

 

ASCE 7-05 tells us to apply one wind load in one direction on one surface of the enclosure (Sec. 6.5.12.4 through 6.5.15.1) I believe that this enclosure is big enough to qualify as a MWFRS. I do not have a problem with using the higher external pressure coefficients prescribed for components and cladding, however, I feel that realistically there would be suction forces on the leeward side of the enclosure. I feel that applying this elevated pressure is grossly conservative. Also, the code does not make mention of roof uplift for components and cladding.

 

Using the MWFRS is ideal because it would provide a more realistic internal force distribution in my finite element model. Please let me know what you think of this methodology. Should I use MWFRS with the elevated pressures prescribed in the Components and Cladding sections.

RE: MWFRS vs C&C

I think ASCE 7 has a provision that if your "element" has over 700 sf of surface area you can use the MWFRS loads instead of C&C.

RE: MWFRS vs C&C

I would probably call this a rooftop stucture and use the provisions for that in ASCE 7
Check Figure 6-21 in ASCE-7 05

RE: MWFRS vs C&C

I woudl call it an "other structure" based on ASCE 7-05 6.5.15.1 and use that section for the wind loads.  Since the FBC does not yet reference the 7-05, I would still use that line of thought and call the RTU a C&C or an "other structure", but not MW whatever the case.  

RE: MWFRS vs C&C

(OP)
JAE: Figure 6.5.12.1.3 says "Tributary" Areas Greater than 700 ft^2. I thought tributary area referred to only the first surface to hit normal to the wind direction.

Others: How do we account for the suction elements on the leeward face? A Ph. D at Berkeley agrees with me that MWFRS is the way to go to account for these suction elements.

I am thinking of applying the "other structure" loads on both the windward and leeward sides. This is grossly conservative and will require me to add more bracing but it will minimize debate. Let me know.  And thank you all.

RE: MWFRS vs C&C

Quote:

I thought tributary area referred to only the first surface to hit normal to the wind direction

The concept of whether the wind hits the first, or nearly the first surface is ONLY a statement made in the commentary and is used mostly to try to clarify the intent of the code.  In my opinion, it muddies the water too much.

Wind loads (C&C vs. MWFRS) should be primarily based on tributary area and not on whether the wind hits the surface first or not.  They are simply trying to suggest that as you go deeper into the wind resisting load path, the tributary area goes up and thus the high localized peak wind pressures from C&C wind (for small At) go away.

RE: MWFRS vs C&C

When you ask "How do we account for the suction elements on the leeward face?" do you mean to ignore the negative C&C pressures?  

The intent of MW is to provide pressures for members that provide stability to the structure as a whole.  Roof top units don't tend to do that.  These are the averaged pressures across the entire structure area at a given point in time.  It would not be appropriate then to apply those same pressures to an appendage of your building, typically.  

For elements with very large tributary areas the localized effects wash out across that area and the average overall time-varying pressure drops, for that area.  Given that ASCE 7-05 does specifically address roof top units and you are already referencing 7-05 in your post, I would go with that.  

The 7-05 does address roof top structures specifically, though not in the MW or C&C sections.  It is in the "other structures" section.  

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close