×
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!
  • Students Click Here

*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.

Students Click Here

Jobs

ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question
3

ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

(OP)
They introduced a new provision in ASCE 7-05 that adds a 1.9x wind pressure multiplier for "Rooftop Structures and Equipment", section 6.5.15.1.  My question is "what is the definition of a roof top structure?".  If I have a small pop-up roof area, say elevator overtravel or something similar, that is in the field of the roof, I would say that it applies.  But what if I have a portion of the building, say an atrium, that pops up on the leading edge of the building.  Does it apply to this higher roof area?  Obviously, applying a 1.9x multiplier will result in much higher wind pressures than simply using a larger h value to calculate wind pressure for the higher roof.  What if the same condition applies to the backside of the atrium, so that the wind has to travel across the field of the main roof before it hits the higher roof?

Second part is about roof equipment.  I am in Florida.  Since this code has been in effect, we have seen several cases where rooftop equipment that has Miami-Dade NOA approval does not have adequate rated wind pressure resistance to meet this new 1.9x criteria.  Most equipment manufacturers still have not heard of this criteria.  In many cases, no one even makes a piece of equipment rated high enough to meet the requirements.  I contacted both the FBC and the Miami-Dade NOA office, and neither director had been aware of this criteria before.  When questioned about approved products not meeting the ASCE7-05 criteria, I was told that NOA approval does not supercede wind pressure design criteria, and to reject such products.  What are the rest of you doing in this case?  This can't be limited just to Florida, since the gulf and east coasts have similar wind speeds.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

Structureguy: I work in Miami, where are you located?

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

Structuresguy...I believe the intent in ASCE 7-05 was for rooftop structures to be those that are added to the structure such as equipment, equipment support frames, screen walls,etc., not those jutting up through the roof and being part of the main wind frame.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

For an explanation of their intent see the commentary on page 300, section C6.5.11, Fig. 6-8, 6-18, 6-19, 6-21, and 6-22.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

I agree with Ron and Arlord

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

(OP)
Yes, I have read that section before.  It is clear that it applies to equipment on the roof, but not necessarily clear what the intent of "rooftop structures" may be.  Obviously, I place an enclosure on the roof, say to enclose a piece of equipment on all sides and top, this would apply.  Well, how would that be different than if the roof popped up, with say a large skylight with vertical sides?  I don't think it would be any different in actual behavior as far as the wind is concerned.  But now the glazing of the skylight would need to be designed for 1.9x multiplier.  These pressures get very high very quick.

Here is an example of the problems we are having with this provision.  Greenheck came to our office a few months back to show off their Miami-Dade NOA approved, 150mph tested rooftop fans and equipment doghouses.  So I asked them if their NOA's were to the 2004 Florida building Code or the 2007 FBC.  Their response "HUH? I don't know."  I looked on their literature, no reference of Code edition.  I looked online at the FBC website approvals page.  Found their approval for 2007 FBC, but it listed a maximum allowable wind pressure (for one very typical model) that would be less than any wind pressure calculated using the 1.9x multiplier for any building in Miami-Dade county over 15 feet with an importance factor of 1.0 or higher.  So how can it be Miami-Dade approved if it does not meet the wind pressures required by the 2007 Code???  I asked this of both the FBC code official and the Miami-Dade NOA head, and both were stumped.  But did say should not be approved if it doesn't meet the new wind Code.  We has since found that there are, in some cases, no products made that would meet the wind pressures by the new Code in Miami-Dade or Broward counties.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

No more rooftop units! It sounds like the code just made your job easier. You can tell them to put their units on the ground or in the building.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

(OP)
I DO!!!  But the architects never want that great big air powered chiller right by the front entrance.  I can't imagine why not.  :)   

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

(OP)
Actually, it's funny that we joke about it.  But I seriously think that that was one of the reasons for adding the 1.9x multiplier.  If not a primary reason, then certainly it is a cause-effect type solution.  

I was down in Ft Lauderdale after the 2004 hurricanes to assess damage at a few facilities.  The roof top equipment on every facility I looked at was utterly destroyed, even if the roof itself was still in reasonably good condition (though some roofs were partially or completely destroyed too *cough* pre-engineered metal buildings *cough*)  It looked as if a bomb was set off in some of these rooftop air handlers.  All the panels were completely gone, leaving the insides exposed and a big hole in the waterproofing through the roof.  Water poured into the building through the destroyed units, ruining everything inside.  So I think by making the wind pressures so much higher, they hope to either force the manufacturers to make units that actually hold up to the wind pressures, or force designers to put the units on the ground, where if they fail, the building interior is not compromised.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

I also do consulting work for a major AHU manufacturer and one of my jobs is to design the anchorage for these units. Many of the units are the size of a mobile home trailer.

Yes, I use the 1.9X factor!!! A lot of HVAC specs require sealed calculations and designs for seismic and wind forces.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

I hate the new factor. I'm thinking that perhaps the new 1.9 factor is so that you can just apply a lateral force to the roof top unit.  Say versus applying both lateral load and an uplift load.  I think the end results are about the same now.  

I sure would like to know where this factor came from and why?   If one is using standard ASCE methodology the wind pressures would be adjusted for the height of the building, the area or project area of the unit, etc...  Why would wind pressure be higher on roof top equipment then anything else?  Perhaps it is just a factor of safety issue.  I wish they would just come out and say it.  Design for twice the wind load because this stuff keeps blowing off the roof.

John Southard, M.S., P.E.
http://www.pdhlibrary.com

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

In 1992, after hurricane Andrew, I was asked to evaluate a variety of structures that had been damaged.  In particular, one client had 6 "big box" structures with HVAC units on the roof, of course.  Two of those, one in Naranja and one in Coral Gables, had 3000 lb units that were literally rolled across the roof and fell onto the ground on the opposite side of the building. One of them fell onto a lower roof before hitting the ground, thus bring the roof structure down as well.

The wind is obviously powerful and those coefficients are probably not far off necessity.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

The 1.9 factor is based on testing, and it seems to be empirically appropriate based on the stories in this thread.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

(OP)
Ron's experience after Andrew in 1992 is exactly the same as mine in 2004 after the hurricanes in Ft Lauderdale.  One facility at the airport, a large cargo shipping hanger, had very large exhaust fans on the roof, about 10-15 ft (dont remember exactly now) fan blade diameter.  There were 4 or 5 of these along the length of the ridge of the building.  The housing total was about the size of a small car.  Every single one of them had blown completely off the roof, tumbling across the roof and tearing it to shreds as it went.  They landed in the parking lot, and came to rest about 100 feet from the building.  These fans weighed well over 1000 lbs.  And the real kicker to it all, they had just been installed a few months previous.  So its not like they failed because they were old and rusty and designed to some old wind code.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

Willis,
The proposed eqn uses a GC factor of 1.9 while ASCE 7-05 uses a factor of 1.9 X the GC from fig 6-21 to 6-23. Plus, the proposed revision gives the 1.5 factor for uplift which was missing from 7-05. This looks reasonable and easy to use. I hope they don't gum it up and make it any more complicated.

Thanks for sharing this link.

I happen to be working on a building with a roof height of 59', which is covered by these equations. What happens if the building grows 2 feet taller? What equation should I use then?

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

Interesting side note to this conversation.  For roof top units, in figure 6-21 of ASCE7-05, I have always used h = height of the roof top unit above the top of roof.  However, after attending a wind seminar, we were told that h = the height of the building + 1/2 the height of the roof top unit.  Big difference.

After reviewing the commentary, I come to agree with the seminar, and I now use the higher h value.  I am curious how others have interpretated the value of h in Fig 6-21.  I hope that clarify the definition of h in the new ASCE 7.

 

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

In Section 6.5.15 "Design Wind Loads on Other Structures",
qz = velocity pressure evaluated at height z of the centroid of area Af. (Eq 6-28)

The h in fig 6-21 should be the same as the z in Eq 6-28. This is the same elevation above grade discussed in your seminar.

 

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

(OP)
OK, question time.  I am working on a project right now where we are adding a new rooftop air handler to a building where the mean roof height is about 56 feet.  So according to the ASCE code, we would need to use the 1.9x multiplier, since it says for buildings with h<=60ft.  But the unit itself is 8 feet tall, and sitting on a curb of about 18 inches.  So the top of the unit would be at about 65.5 feet.  In eq. 6-28, it says to evaluate q at the centroid of the equipment.  So in our case the centroid would be at 61.5 feet.  This is above the 60 feet requirement.

So my question is, in this case, do you think the 1.9x multiplier still applies?  The wording of the paragraph which lists the 1.9x requirement really is not clear.   

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

Use 1.9X, since your roof height is 56'.

I have a similar situation now. The roof height is 58' and the screen walls are 18'.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

(OP)
my plan was to use the 1.9x multiplier.  Just wanted to see if anyone thought otherwise.  In this case, the pressure on the roof top unit will be 107psf.  But the unit manufacturer that we want to specify (I think it was Trane) can only handle up to 85 psf.  so my mechanical engineer was all in a lather when I told him 107.  :)

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

I have found this discussion quite useful, but I'm an engineer in Florida working on designing the anchorage for roof top units on a pair of buildings that are 165' in height.  Do any of you have any experience with what to do in this case.  Prior to ASCE 7-05, the buildings less than 60' limit did not apply.  What are your thoughts in applying the 1.9x multiplier in this case?

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

I would think that the increased wind load at that height would be enough without any extra 1.9X effects.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

(OP)
My understanding is that the code only requires the 1.9x multiplier for units on building less than 60 feet.  So, I agree with Steve that the higher Kh would take care of the pressure on the tall building.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Rooftop Structure 1.9x Wind Multiplier question

Thanks all for your input.  I was concerned that there would still be increased turbulence above and beyond the standard wind pressure at that height.  Does anyone know why they cut-off the requirement at 60 feet?  Is this the height to which they have testing?

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