Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
(OP)
ASCE 7-10 introduced a new load combination reduction factor of 0.6 for wind in paragraph 2.4 (ASD) versus a factor of "1.0" used in 7-05.
The Commentary provides some explanation of the basis for this change. But the end result seems to be that for a nonbuilding structure designed to paragraph 29.5 the base shear is reduced by 40% from same structure analyzed under 7-05 rules. I wonder if this was fully intended by the Committee. Any comments? Thank you.
The Commentary provides some explanation of the basis for this change. But the end result seems to be that for a nonbuilding structure designed to paragraph 29.5 the base shear is reduced by 40% from same structure analyzed under 7-05 rules. I wonder if this was fully intended by the Committee. Any comments? Thank you.






RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
Th base shear is approximately equal to the previous strength level of 1.6 times the force calculated using the slower velocities from ASCE 7-05.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
It is actually a bit more complicated than that in hurricane regions. in ASCE 7-05 the wind speed maps were fudged to represent MRIs between 50 and 100 years so that when multiplied by the 1.6 load factor they would still get an ultimate MRI of about 700 years (because hurricane recurrence intervals are calculated differently than inland storm recurrence intervals). The new maps even the playing field by just using the 700 year recurrence interval wind velocities in both non-hurricanes and non-hurricanes areas with a 1.0 L.F. so that no wind speed fudging is necessary.
In summary, though different than ASCE 7-05 (and nobody likes change), what is presented in ASCE 7-10 actually makes MORE sense and is MORE transparent than what it used to be.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
-The question was about ASD
-In most places there is 50 years of data (where is there 700?)
-This change introduces the possibility (yes it would be a bad, stupid mistake) of mixing and matching load factors and maps.
Just my opinion.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
Calculation of the velocity pressure (qz) is identical between ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 7-10, at least for a rigid nonbuilding structure. Thus for a "given wind speed" the calculated pressures will be identical. The application of the load combination factor 0.6 for wind will result in lower base shear under the new Edition.
However, the wind speed maps have been changed in the new Edition, increasing the standard wind speed for the same location. Thus entering the new, higher wind speed in the calculation for factored wind load should yield near to the same load as the older Edition.
I have to wonder if this has really been picked up by the engineers who specify the purchase of the pressure vessels. Yesterday a customer's consulting engineer (PE) wanted to apply the "importance factor" to the ASCE 7-10 wind load, as in ASCE 7-05. ...but the new Edition treats this quite differently.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
@TomBarsh - correct. The wind speeds used with ASCE 7-10 equations need to be based on the new maps. That coordination certainly needs to take place between purchaser and manufacturer.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
showing 150mph is actually approx. 90mph in the real world....not to worry...these are ultimate speed levels!!...this is fine if your goal is to invent a new language or logic....maybe we should apply the same logic to our engineering income...so I just got a hefty virtual raise in income...feeling better already.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
I can only imagine how long it will take non-building equipment guys to get up to speed on this new-fangled "ultimate strength" wind.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
Also, the wind speed shown in FEMA 361 for tornados are 100,000 year recurrence interval.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
For buildings in Occupancy Categories III and IV (corresponding to old higher importance factors) the MRI is 1700 as you suggest.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
Lion06, that's just statistical manipulation. If you have a given probability distribution, whatever level gives you a 1 in 1000 chance of occurring in a year has a 1,000 year return period, etc. It doesn't mean the wind will blow that strong once and only once every 1,000 years, or that you had to record wind speeds for 1,000 years to get that data.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
If I put 160 mph on the note sheet of my building drawings the average non-engineer will get a false sense that their building can handle a hurricane of up to 160 mph. When actuality it is designed more to a sustained wind of 115 mph.
Does anyone have a suggestion of wording or language that can be put on the drawings to demonstrate the sustained or the more realistic design wind speed for a building?
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
Longweekend,
Nope, your building is designed to resist the wind speed of 160 mph.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
We did a wind calc for a architect client doing an interior reno of an existing tall hotel in Texas. No structures on the job, but the window guy needed design pressures. The owner wanted us to use the 2010 loads.
I did the calcs, based on the 'new' speed maps. Usually in a case like this we just give the design pressures, unfactored. It would be up to the contractors engineer to apply the correct combo factors.
When we sent the loads, they freaked out. They said they couldn't design to such high loads. Even though we told them, these were based on the new methods, they were not yet familiar with the new methods.
We needed to walk them through it, and do the calcs again, with 2005 methods so they could understand.
I fear this won't be the last time we run into this kind of confusion with this new method. I respect the science and reason behind it. Unfortunately our clients, owners and contractors are not scientists, stats professors, or academics. It's going to take a while to get them to understand, "my building is designed for 160mph wind, but safe for 90mph."
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
Your description works for LRFD only.
It used to be rational. We'd factor up loads for LRFD, and factor down to allowable stresses for ASD. Now with the new wind code, we factor up the wind loads for ASD, and factor down the wind loads for LRFD.
Luckily, we have all these fancy analysis programs to calculate this all for us in a black box, so we don't have to be concerned about actually understanding what's going on.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
The 2010 winds are ACTUAL, maximum winds for a certain return interval. The interval is different for different categories of structure. A load factor is not applied since there is no upward increase due to variability - these are maximums. Floor loads are factored upward because of potential variation in actual loads, NOT for the purpose of providing a factor of safety for anything except load variation.
If the structure is designed for a 2010 wind, it is designed for that wind. If you use a lower value, you get a weaker-than-design-strength structure (or cladding, or whatever.) If the cladding does not need to resist the full design wind for some reason, and the code allows, then design for less.
The 2005 winds are nominal winds, which could be expected to be exceeded at some interval, which is why they were factored up.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
I can not grasp what people are complaining about. The equations are basically the same, you just use a higher V. If you want service loads you multiply by 0.6. Geez.
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
In most buildings (in the mid-west, where I practice) the lateral drift from wind will control. Unlike what dcarr said above, to get service loads, you actually need to use the 'service' wind maps from the appendix. So now, we have four wind maps for each building category, and four more for the deflections of each building category. Eight wind maps, and new load combinations too.
I know the loads didn't change (in most cases), and again, I get the method and how to implement it. I'm just concerned we are adding complexity, and therefore the chance of errors.
Does anyone have any literature on what facilitated this change? I'm trying to get the old grey hairs at the office to buy into the code changes, and I'm having trouble making them see the more than just change for the sake of change.
I was lucky enough to take a wind course in grad school by Peter Irwin (principal of RWDI and major contributer to the wind provisions). I didn't get the impression from him the 2005 code was a terrible way to do things. Why did the code committee make this change?
RE: Wind: ASCE 7-10 versus 7-05
Since we design strength for maximums, it makes sense to use a maximum value. The change to maximum winds values allows easy maintenance of these values as experience increases and modeling improves. Any use of factors to reduce these values is arbitrary, which should lead us to publishing a "service level wind" map instead. This would give us one more map which would be essentially the 2005 wind map, but it could be based on actual winds with a 50 or 100 year interval, like floods.
The use of multiple maps is a more technically correct method than an arbitrary multiplier. The map for more "important" buildings is simply for a longer timeline, meaning that the probability of the same winds is greater and a higher wind is possible. The philosophy behind the current wind levels is that we go with the highest winds during the interval. Whether the methods to get these numbers is valid, or whether doing so is truly needed, are entirely different issues. I think we could really benefit from agreeing that designing strength for all buildings for winds with a 700 or 1700 year return interval is adequate, and it needn't vary by category of occupancy.
One of the things that explicitly weighs in to ICC code changes is "will this change increase the cost of construction". The way this change was done allowed them to answer "No", whereas making a wholesale change to the design level loads would have either made structures weaker or made them more expensive.