High Wind Archives - Page 4 of 5 -

Open Front Structure Wind Pressure Design

We received a request from Martin H., one of our blog readers, to discuss the method for determining roof wind pressures on an open front agricultural building. The inquiry was regarding clarification on analyzing the roof pressure when a combined external and interior pressure exists and whether these are additive.

As can be seen in the above illustrations, the net design pressure on the roof is the sum of the uplift on the exterior surface and the uplift on the interior surface from any internal pressure. ASCE 7 provides a method for determining this pressure. Specifically, ASCE 7-10 will be used for the remainder of this post. Assuming the three remaining sides of the open front structure are walls without openings, the building will be classified as partially enclosed by the definitions of Section 26.2.

ASCE 7-10 provides for two methods for determining the Main Wind Force Resisting System (MWFRS) wind loads for partially enclosed buildings, the Directional Procedure in Chapter 27, and the Envelope Procedure in Chapter 28.

When using the Directional Procedure, the net wind load is calculated using the following equation:

P = qGC_p – q_i(GC_pi)

When using the Envelope Procedure, the net wind load is calculated using the following equation:

P = q_h[(GC_pf) – (GC_pi)]

In each of these equations, the first portion determines the pressure on the exterior surface, and the second portion determines the pressure on the interior surface. So the variable for calculating the internal pressure is the internal pressure coefficient GC_pi.

The internal pressure coefficient is provided in Table 26.11-1 based on three different categories of building enclosure.

Enclosure Classification	(GC_pi)
Open Buildings	0.00
Partially Enclosed Buildings	+0.55 -0.55
Enclosed Buildings	+0.18 -0.18

Table 26.11-1

In the case of an open front structure, it is assumed that the partially enclosed internal pressure coefficient must be used. This coefficient is 3x greater than when the building envelope is classified as enclosed. Use of this higher coefficient in the design will account for the interior pressure on the underside of the roof combined with the exterior pressure.

MWFRS versus C&C

Another somewhat related question: to what level loads should the roof anchorage forces be calculated, MWFRS or C&C (Component and Cladding)? I have often been asked this question, and wrote a Technical Note published by CFSEI (Cold-Formed Steel Engineers Institute) in July 2009.

What are your thoughts?

– Sam

What are your thoughts? Visit the blog and leave a comment!

Building Drift – Do You Check It?

Guest Blogger Sam Hensen, Simpson Strong-Tie Southeast Engineering Manager — Sam Hensen

[Simpson Strong-Tie note: Sam Hensen is the Simpson Strong-Tie Engineering Manager for the Southeast U.S. and the latest blogger for the Structural Engineering Blog. For more on Sam, see his bio here.]

Just as bending and shear checks performed on gravity loaded beams do not ensure that the beam will comply with required deflection limitations, adherence to allowable shears and aspect ratio limits on shearwalls does not mean the structure will comply with required drift limitations. Shearwalls that are too flexible may prevent the structure from meeting drift limitations even if the shearwall design has adequate strength.

Seismic

For seismic load applications, section 12.12.1 of ASCE7-10 states that the design story drift of the structure shall not exceed the allowable drift listed in table 12.12-1. For light-frame buildings, the maximum permitted drift is 2.5% of the story height. This limitation is put in place not merely for serviceability reasons, but is an inherent effect of current seismic design provisions that is required to be checked to ensure life safety.

Preventing Roof Tiles from Becoming Wind-Borne Debris in High Wind Regions

I tend to think of designers as dealing with either wind or seismic design, yet the Southeast region contains everything that Mother Nature can throw at a building. This includes high seismic areas along the New Madrid and Charleston faults, hurricanes along the Gulf and Eastern coast, and tornado prone areas throughout the South and Midwest. Sam participated in the investigation and was a co-author of the Damage Study and Future Direction for Structural Design Following the Tuscaloosa Tornado of 2011, which gives him some very recent experience with tornado damage. This week, Sam will be discussing a topic not often thought about by structural engineers – the importance of proper roof tile attachments. Here is Sam’s post:

According to recent studies by the Insurance Institute for Business Home and Safety (IBHS), roof coverings are a major problem area in wind-related events and account for 95% plus of home claims after the event.

Preventing roof tiles from becoming wind-borne debris in high wind regions is essential for several reasons, and may also have an effect on insurance premiums. In this post, I’d like to discuss two reasons that roof tiles can pose a significant threat to life safety:

Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage Design

While the Simpson Strong-Tie Tye Gilb R&D lab in Stockton is a large testing facility, the world’s largest R&D lab is Mother Nature herself. Natural disasters such as earthquakes or storms put our engineering designs to the test. In this week’s blog post, I’ll be turning attention to wall anchorage for out-of-plane forces and the lessons we have learned from Mother Nature so far.

The 1979 building code incorporated many of the lessons learned from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. In 1994, Mother Nature put the 1979 building code to the test with the January 17 Northridge earthquake. The Northridge earthquake showed that some of the increased design and detailing requirements in the 1979 building code worked well to improve performance over what was observed in 1971. However, it also revealed to researchers that acceleration at the roof level of single story warehouse buildings were three to four times the ground acceleration. The combination of higher than expected acceleration and excessive deformation of the wall anchorage assembly caused many wall anchorage failures.

Figure 1 Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage Assembly

Several changes in the design forces used for wall anchorage and additional detailing requirements were incorporated in the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The requirements have been refined with each new building code, but overall the requirements and design forces have remained about the same under the current International Building Code. Wall anchorage design is governed by ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 7-10 Section 12.11. These provisions aim to mitigate the brittle wall anchorage failures observed in past earthquakes by increasing the design force and in Seismic Design Categories C through F, requiring:Continue Reading

Who’s Thinking About Deck Safety? I Am!

A few months ago, the Today Show asked Simpson Strong-Tie to demonstrate a deck collapse to educate the public about deck safety. Often through the Fall and Winter months, decks go unused yet see a lot of activity from rain, sleet and snow. When the sun comes out in the Spring, people get out on their decks again without much thought about how the elements may have affected the important connections on their deck.

In addition to the weather, there are other factors to consider about deck safety:

Experts agree that the average life expectancy of a wood deck is 10 to 15 years.
It’s estimated that there are millions of decks in the U.S. that are beyond their useful life and may be unsafe.
The number of deck collapses has increased in recent years.
Within the past five years, 651 injuries and four deaths have occurred due to deck collapse.

So, I’m thinking about deck safety. I thought I’d share with you the “5 Warning Signs of an Unsafe Deck” we discussed on the Today Show:

Who's Thinking About Deck Safety? I Am!

Experts agree that the average life expectancy of a wood deck is 10 to 15 years.
It’s estimated that there are millions of decks in the U.S. that are beyond their useful life and may be unsafe.
The number of deck collapses has increased in recent years.
Within the past five years, 651 injuries and four deaths have occurred due to deck collapse.

So, I’m thinking about deck safety. I thought I’d share with you the “5 Warning Signs of an Unsafe Deck” we discussed on the Today Show:
Continue Reading

Designing Steel Roof Deck Attachment for Combined Tension and Shear

In last week’s post I made a reference to California’s golden sunshine. Californians may have to deal with wildfires, earthquakes, and wearing sunscreen year round, but we generally don’t have high wind to worry about. In a previous blog post, Roof Deck Design Considerations for High Wind Events, I discussed some of the general challenges in designing for wind uplift. This week, I wanted to get a little more specific and discuss the standards applicable to steel roof deck attachments.

Historically, procedures for design of structural connections that utilize fasteners recognize the importance of combined loading effects on structural performance. Whether bolts or screws are the connector choice, the metallic structure of steel alloys includes transverse slip planes of relatively low resistance. This results in yield criteria (function that defines the onset of yielding or fracture) that are often limited by load-deformation performance along transverse planes.

Cantilever Floor Induced Load Path Concerns

IBC Section 1604.9 requires structural members, systems, components and cladding be designed to resist forces due to earthquakes and wind, with consideration of overturning, sliding and uplift. It also states that a continuous load path be provided for transmitting these forces to the foundation. Seems obvious to engineers that a continuous load path is needed, but it’s still nice to have the code say so.

But what happens if your structure’s upper and lower story walls do not stack? How do you create the required continuous load path? As engineers, we try to steer the architect towards eliminating the offset, making things line up, and keeping construction simple. But architectural requirements cannot always accommodate simple, and non-stacking walls occur all the time.

Corrosion in Coastal Environments

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”

– Benjamin Franklin

Any contractor that has ever had to replace a corroded connector or fastener will tell you this quote is an understatement. Here at Simpson Strong-Tie, we spend a lot of time refining new product designs to simplify their installation, but uninstalling a joist hanger? It never crosses our minds, and it shows by looking at all the tools you would need: claw hammer, cat’s paw, reciprocating saw, and the all-important first aid kit.

But luckily for the project owner, an ounce of prevention only costs about the price of half a pound of cure. Stainless steel connectors and fasteners are in the range of 5-10 times the cost of galvanized steel. However, connections are usually only a small part of a project’s overall budget and are a critical part of the load path, so the argument for stainless steel is an easy one to make.

Top 3 Roof Deck Design Considerations for High Wind Events

Was it JFK who said, “The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining?” He was likely using the roof as an analogy for the economy, but I take things literally and wanted to talk about roofs. The time to think about the design of your roof and its function in a high wind event like a hurricane or tornado is right now.

During a high wind event, a roof deck is expected to perform many functions. It should prevent water intrusion from rain, withstand impacts and protect those inside from hail. It also needs to act as a diaphragm – transferring lateral loads to shear walls and resisting the vacuum effects of wind uplift forces.Continue Reading