Contact US

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.

Students Click Here

Wind Load Cases 1 thru 4 (Fig. 27.3-8 in ASCE 7).

Wind Load Cases 1 thru 4 (Fig. 27.3-8 in ASCE 7).

Wind Load Cases 1 thru 4 (Fig. 27.3-8 in ASCE 7).


I'm curious if people that are using the directional procedure for wind loading ever have Cases 2, 3, or 4 control. I'm usually doing residential, and I think these code provisions are there because of the design of the Citibank building in NYC. I solved the equation symbolically for a rectangular 2-story box and get a loading of 0.8625*P for one shear wall, and 0.6375 for the other (where P is the total load in Case 1). So Case 2 will never control, at least not for rectangular boxes with resistance elements on all sides.

Has anyone else come to the same conclusion?

RE: Wind Load Cases 1 thru 4 (Fig. 27.3-8 in ASCE 7).

For simply wood structures with flexible diaphragms? Pretty much. But if you get into rigid or semi-rigid diaphragms with odd shear wall layouts that require the resolution of torsion through the diaphragm with just a simple case 1, you can get some interesting results with the others.

RE: Wind Load Cases 1 thru 4 (Fig. 27.3-8 in ASCE 7).

Hi phamENG,

Yes, I should've included that. A simple wood structure with a flexible diaphragm. As I mentioned, I believe these load cases came from the design of the CitiTower in NYC, which has rigid diaphragms and no supports on the corners (or maybe no support on just one corner, it's been too long!). The building was found to be structurally deficient by a grad student studying the unique design. It was designed by only looking at Case 1 (before there was Cases 2, 3, or 4). Thanks for your confirmation.

On a similar note, I'm only seeing Case 3 to be relevant to hold down design, as two walls can share a common hold down. Would you agree?


RE: Wind Load Cases 1 thru 4 (Fig. 27.3-8 in ASCE 7).

I know quartering winds were the source of the problem with CitiTower, but I don't know if that caused the change in the building code or if a change in the building code prompted somebody to consider it - I don't know enough about the history of the code development to agree or argue with you.

Generally speaking, yes. Though the increase on the hold down is only about 6% for a square building which would be the worst case. That's usually not enough to make a difference, but might be if you're right on the line between hold downs.

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! Already a Member? Login


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