Wind Loads On Non-Building Structures Using ASCE 7-10

Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 1438
Wind Loads On Non-Building Structures Using ASCE 7-10

Silky Wong1, Ankur Sepaha2, Naga Swamy3, Samuel D. Amoroso4, Dawar Naqvi5
1
Fluor Corp, One Fluor Daniel Drive, Sugar Land, TX 77478; PH (281) 295-6303;
email: silky.wong@fluor.com
2
email: ankur.sepaha@fluor.com
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
3
email: naga.swamy@fluor.com
4
Engenus Engineering and Consulting, 9191 Siegen Lane, Building 6, Suite A, Baton
Rouge, LA 70810; PH (225) 246-8206; email: sam.amoroso@engensus.com
5
email: dawar.naqvi@fluor.com
ABSTRACT
The wind load provisions of Chapter 6 in ASCE 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures have been reorganized into six chapters in the 2010
edition. Technical changes include the introduction of new wind speed maps to be
used with a 1.0 load factor for LRFD and a 0.6 load factor for ASD, the
reintroduction of Exposure D for water surfaces in Hurricane-Prone Regions, and
revised wind-borne debris regions. The present guideline Wind Loads and Anchor
Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities (1997) by ASCE Petrochemical Energy
Committee is commonly used in the industry for calculating wind loads on non-
building structures and components. The new edition of this publication Wind Loads
for Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities was released in September 2011
based on the provisions of ASCE 7-05.
This paper addresses the important changes to the wind load provisions of ASCE 7-
10 for non-building structures and components. This paper also provides comparative
parametric studies of wind loads calculated using the analytical procedures based on
the 2011 edition of Wind Loads for Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities and
the provisions of ASCE 7-10 for new non-building structures and components,
including pipe racks, open equipment structures, and vertical vessels.
INTRODUCTION
With the fact that codes and standards have not addressed all aspects of defining wind
loads for petrochemical and other industrial facilities, many engineers and companies
involved in the industry have developed procedures and techniques for calculating
wind loads on such facilities. The 1997 ASCE Task Committee report Wind Loads
and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities attempted to provide general
guidelines for the computation of wind loads for industrial structures. Since the
publication of the first edition, buildings codes and standards covering the calculation
of wind loads have changed significantly. The ASCE updated and published a new
edition of Wind Loads for Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities in 2011
Structures Congress 2012

(stated as the 2011 Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline in this paper), based on the
latest research in wind loads on Petrochemical structures and for consistency with
building codes, standards, and industrial practices. However, the guideline uses the
2005 edition of ASCE 7 (ASCE 7-05) as its basis. The applicability of the guidelines
provided in this report using the latest standard becomes essential.
The wind load provisions of Chapter 6 in ASCE 7-05 have been reorganized into 6
new chapters and are ordered in a logical sequence from Chapters 26 thru 31 in the
2010 edition of ASCE 7 (ASCE 7-10). Details of the reorganization and

modifications to the wind load provisions of ASCE 7-10 are available in variety of
resources as listed in the “References” section of this paper. This paper will focus on
the technical changes that would affect the design of petrochemical and other
industrial facilities, mainly, Chapter 29 – Wind Loads on Other Structures and
Building Appurtenances, which contains requirements for the determination of Main
Wind Force Resisting System loads for building appurtenances and other structures.
This paper presents a review of the significant changes of ASEC 7-10 from ASCE 7-
05, as well as changes to the Wind Loads for Petrochemical and Other Industrial
Facilities report since 1997. Base shears of three types of common newly constructed,
non-building structures, as listed below, were computed/modeled and analyzed using
computation methods and guidelines offered from these documents.
(1) A typical rigid pipe rack structure located in various US regions.

(2) An open frame structure considering force coefficients from various methods.
(3) Rigid and flexible vertical vessels on ground of various heights computed using
the Simplified Method from the Petrochemical Wind Load Guidelines.
This paper includes observations and recommendations from the data obtained from
the analyses. The paper also includes the results and conclusions drawn from the
investigated parameters.
NON-BUILDING STRUCTURES CONSIDERED

The following section summarizes the detailed configuration and study scope of each
non-building structure example. Combined factored dead load and transverse wind
load cases were considered in the analysis.
Pipe Rack – Figure 1 shows the steel pipe rack structure configuration used for the
study. It is a 20-ft wide rack with a typical bent spacing of 20 ft. All columns and
stringers are not considered to be shielded. WT8 vertical diagonal braces are located
at every sixth bay. The stringers and the columns are W10 and W12 sections
respectively. There are three levels of pipes and cable trays at elevations 18 ft, 24 ft,
and 30 ft, respectively. Two levels of W10 struts are at 21 ft and 27 ft respectively.
There are no horizontal braces or fireproofing insulation.

Figure 1. Pipe Rack Elevation View and Section View.
Open Frame Structure – The base shears are determined on the three-bay by three-
bay open frame structure shown in Figures 2 and 3 using the methods described in
Section 5.2, Appendix 5A, and Appendix 5B of the 2011 Petrochemical Wind Load
Guideline in conjunction with ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 7-10. Overall plan dimensions
are 60 ft long, 60 ft wide, and 35 ft high. The frame structure supports pipes, cable
trays, equipment (such as vertical and horizontal vessels), and appurtenances (such as
ladders, handrails, etc). Vertical chevron bracings are considered in one direction
only. Ten percent of the gross area is assumed to be piping for wind load calculations.
Similarly, 3% of the gross area is assumed to be cable tray for calculating wind loads.
The lower two levels are decked with checkered plates (solid floorings) and the top
level is floored with open grating.
Figure 2. Open Frame Structure Elevation View.
Vertical Vessel – Figure 4 illustrates the vertical uniform cylindrical steel vessel used
for the study. The vertical vessel, with an out-to-out diameter of 15 ft without

insulation, is spaced greater than three (3) times the vessel diameter from the nearest
neighboring vessel. The heights of the rigid vessels studied vary from 100 ft to 200 ft,
and the heights of the flexible vessels vary from 200 ft to 300 ft. Wind base shears on
the vessels using the Simplified Method from Section 5.4.1.2 of the 2011
Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline in conjunction with ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 7-10
were compared. Simplified design information for piping and platforms are
considered.
Figure 3. Open Frame Structure Elevation

View. Figure 4. Vertical Vessel 3D View.
PARAMETERS OF STUDY
The following section outlines the most notable code changes for analyzing wind base
shears on the non-building structures presented in this paper. The results and effects
of using various methods are graphed and compared in the “Parametric Evaluations”
section.
Load Combinations and Design Wind Speeds. ASCE 7-10 uses a strength or limit
state wind speed map. Unlike ASCE 7-05, which contains a single map coupled with
an importance factor and a wind load factor of 1.6, multiple strength design wind
speed maps can be found in ASCE 7-10 with a wind load factor of 1.0 for LRFD (or
0.6 for ASD). The following LRFD and ASD wind load combinations in ASCE 7
(Section 2.3.2 and Section 2.4.1) were analyzed in the examples:
ASCE 7-05 ASCE 7-10

Combining Factored Loads Using Strength Design
4. 1.2D + 1.6W + L + 0.5(Lr or S or R) 4. 1.2D + 1.0W + L + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
6. 0.9D + 1.6W 6. 0.9D + 1.0W
Combining Nominal Loads Using Allowable Stress Design
5. D + (1.0W or 0.7E) 5. D + (0.6W or 0.7E)
6a. D + 0.75L + 0.75(1.0W) + 0.75(Lr or S 6a. D + 0.75L + 0.75(0.6W) + 0.75(Lr or S
or R) or R)
7. 0.6D + 1.0W 7. 0.6D + 0.6W

The wind speed now is mapped at much longer return periods in order to “embed” the
wind load factor of 1.6 as specified in ASCE 7-05. For example, the 100-year return
period wind speed for Risk Category III and IV structures equates to a 1,700-year
return period design wind speed with a wind load factor of 1.0. Generally, the
approximate difference in design wind speeds shown in the ASCE 7-10 maps are 30
mph higher than those presented in the ASCE 7-05 maps. However, engineers should
not attempt to simply apply a universal conversion factor to obtain the ASCE 7-10
design wind speed from the ASCE 7-05 wind speed, due to the fact that new design
wind speeds vary with locations, and between Hurricane-Prone and Non-Hurricane-
Prone Regions. Details of the changes to wind speed maps are included in ASCE 7-10
Section C26.5. The new wind speed maps and the elimination of the wind importance
factors reduce the discontinuity in risk between hurricane prone coastal areas and the
remainder of the country and better align the treatment of wind and earthquake
effects.
Hurricane-Prone Regions. The exposure categories in ASCE 7 are related to the

surface roughness of the surrounding land. Exposure D was eliminated from the
hurricane prone coastline in ASCE 7-98. It was believed that as the wind speed of a
hurricane increased, the roughness of the water surface was such that Exposure D was
not applicable along the hurricane coast. However, analysis of dropsonde data has
indicated that the ocean roughness at high wind speeds does not continue to increase
as previously thought [Ref. 8]. Therefore, the Surface Roughness Category D in
ASCE 7-10 now includes flat, unobstructed areas and water surfaces including
Hurricane-Prone Regions as shown below.
ASCE 7-05 ASCE 7-10

Surface Roughness D
Flat, unobstructed areas and water surfaces Flat, unobstructed areas and water surfaces.
outside hurricane prone regions. This This category includes smooth mud flats, salt
category includes smooth mud flats, salt flats, and unbroken ice.
flats, and unbroken ice.
Definition of Hurricane-Prone Regions
Areas vulnerable to hurricanes; in the United Areas vulnerable to hurricanes; in the United
States and its territories defined as States and its territories defined as
1. The U.S. Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of 1. The U.S. Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
Mexico coasts where the basic wind speed is Mexico coasts where the basic wind speed
greater than 90 mi/h, and for Risk Category II buildings is greater than
2. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin 115 mi/h, and
Islands, and American Samoa. 2. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin
Islands, and American Samoa.
Note: Windborne Debris Regions are areas within hurricane prone regions where impact
protection is required for glazed openings. In ASCE 7-10, those protection requirements are
more explicitly addressed.
The effective design wind speeds in Hurricane-Prone Regions are reduced in ASCE
7-10. The non-hurricane wind speeds are approximately the same as those that have
been in ASCE 7 since 1995. The reduction is due to the results obtained from the
hurricane simulation model updates, including an improved wind field model, a new

filling model (weakening after landfall), a new statistical Holland B model (pressure-
wind relationship), and a new model for tracks and pressures (landfall location and
intensity) [Ref. 8].
Force Coefficients for Open Frame Structure. The Force Coefficient, Cf, of an
open frame structure could be calculated using the ASCE 7 provisions for “trussed
towers.” The equation is based on the solidity ratio, ε, of the entire frame normal to
the wind direction, and the plan cross section. However, this method does not
consider the presence of interior columns or interior bays of framing. Wind Loads for
Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities provides guidelines and charts to
determine Cf of the entire frame by considering the number of frames, the frame
spacing ratio, and ε. Furthermore, the guideline covers wind loads on open frame or
lattice structures, with or without equipment, piping, electrical items, stairs, ladders,
handrails, etc.
Several changes have been made to the treatment of open frame structures in the 2011
Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline. A simpler, alternative method for calculating
wind forces on high-solidity open frame structures has been included in a new
Appendix 5B. This method is applicable for structures with total projected solidity
(including framing equipment, piping, etc) of 50% or more. The presence of solid
flooring on open frame structures has been shown to reduce the wind loads, and
provisions for this are now included in Section 5.2.4.2. The projected area for open
frame structures must consider the vertical projection of diagonal bracing located in a
plane parallel to the wind in Section 5.2.4.6. Finally, a new relationship for the
shielding of equipment housed within open frame structures has been developed.
Gust Effect Factors for Vertical Vessels. For non-building structures that have a
fundamental natural frequency greater than one (1) Hz, the Gust Effect Factor, Gf, can
be taken as 0.85. The detailed method of ASCE 7 provides guidance to calculate Gf.
However, this procedure requires estimation of the non-building structure’s
frequency, which is not stated in either ASCE 7-05 or ASCE 7-10.
The 2011 Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline offers equations to determine the
natural period of vibrations (T) for uniform vertical cylindrical steel and non-uniform
vertical vessels (Eq. 5.7 and Eq. 5.8). The frequency, f, can be determined by f = 1/T
(Eq. 5.6). The guideline also recommends considering 10% of the empty weight to
account for to the weight of piping which is not included in the initial weight of the
empty or operating weights.
Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline

1997 Edition 2011 Edition
Use ASCE 7 to calculate velocity pressures Use ASCE 7 to calculate velocity pressures
and to obtain the appropriate gust effect and to obtain the appropriate
factors. Gust Effect Factor, Gf, based on the
governing empty or operating vessel
frequency.

Force Coefficients for Vertical Vessels. The Simplified Method in Section 5.4.1.2
for calculating forces on vertical vessels, in the absence of more detailed design
information, now requires the consideration of a rough surface for the cylinder. Based
on wind tunnel studies conducted by Amoroso [Ref. 6], the force was underestimated
using the simplified method with the assumption of a moderately smooth cylindrical
surface as stated in the previous edition.
PARAMETRIC EVALUATIONS
Effect of Changes to the Basic Wind Speed Maps and Wind Load Factors. The
allowable stress design and strength design pipe rack base shears using ASCE 7 were
compared. While there are no substantial changes to the wind load provisions for
newly constructed pipe racks, the ratio of pipe rack wind base shear using ASCE 7-10
to that using ASCE 7-05, as shown in Equation (1), would be applicable to typical
non-building structures.
2
FV_ASCE 7 -10 VASCE 7 -10 ⋅ WLFASCE 7 -10
=
2
(1)
FV_ASCE 7 - 05 VASCE 7 - 05 ⋅ IW ⋅ WLFASCE 7 -05
where FV is the wind base shear, V is the required design wind speed obtained from
the wind speed map, Iw is the occupancy importance factor applied to the wind load
as determined from Table 6-1 of ASCE 7-05, and WLF is the wind load factor. It is
important to note that the ASCE 7-10 design wind speeds are dependent on the site
locations for the purpose of eliminating the use of importance factor in the new
provision. Therefore, the ratio in Equation (1) may vary for the same structure to be
built in two different locations even the corresponding ASCE 7-05 design wind
speeds in these two locations are the same.
Effect of Re-introduction of Exposure D for Coastal Areas in Hurricane-Prone

Regions. In order to investigate the effect of the re-introduction of Exposure D for
coastal areas, allowable stress design base shears for pipe rack structures in coastal
hurricane regions were analyzed in various US locations, including Galveston, Biloxi,
Clearwater , and Atlantic City. Wind loads using ASCE 7-05 were based on Wind
Exposure Category C, whereas wind loads using ASCE 7-10 were based on Wind
Exposure Category D.
The results in Figure 5 indicate that the new wind speed maps, when used in
combination with the 0.6 factor on wind for allowable stress design, generally result
in a net decrease in design wind loads in Hurricane-Prone Regions even considering
the more severe Exposure Category D (except for Risk Category I, which is rarely
applicable for Petrochemical Facilities).
Percentage differences of pipe rack base transverse wind shears in the study locations
are tabulated in Table 1-1 of Appendix 1. Due to the re-introduction of Exposure D
for coastal areas, design wind shears in some Hurricane-Prone Regions, such as

Biloxi, are approximately the same when compared to previous provisions. From this
study, in general, the ASCE 7-10 design wind base shears are reduced, and in some
locations, such as Atlantic City, the reduction can be as high as 22%.
(a): Risk Category II
(b): Risk Category III/IV

Figure 5. Pipe Rack Base Shear (ASD) Comparison in Various Coastline Hurricane Regions.
Effect of Revised Cf Computation for Open Frame Structures. Figure 6 shows

the relationship between the factored base shear of the open structural frame and
design wind speeds in US Regions for Wind Exposure Category C. The
recommended method in Chapter 5 of the 2011 Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline
produces slightly higher base shears than that of Appendix 5A. Furthermore, using
the ASCE 7-10 provisions for calculating wind loads can result in considerably lower
forces compared to those based on ASCE 7-05, especially in high wind speed regions.

Figure 6. Risk Category III/IV Open Frame Structure Base Shear (LRFD) Comparison for Wind
Exposure Category C (Frame with High Solidity).
In addition to the revised ASCE 7 wind speed maps and whether or not the
importance factor is used, the base shear variance is due to the calculated Cf from
various methods as tabulated in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Cf Factors for the Open Frame Structure Example (Total Solidity Ratio = 0.88).
ASCE 7-05 Petrochem. 2011 Petrochem. 2011 Petrochem. 2011
ASCE 7-10 Ch. 5 App. 5A App. 5B
Frame Steel 3.2 4.0 3.6 1.7
Ladder, Handrail 2.0 2.0 2.0 [based on gross
Cable Tray 2.0 2.0 2.0 area; equivalent to
Piping 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.7/0.88 = 1.93
Horizontal Vessel 1.3 1.3 1.3 when considering
Vertical Vessel 0.9 0.9 0.9 net area]
Note: In the study, Cf value from the App. 5B method was applied to the frame gross area while Cf
values from all other methods were applied to component net areas.
It should be noted that Cf factors of the structural frames from Chapter 5, Appendix
5A and Appendix 5B methods are affected by the solidity ratios. Figure 7 presents the
open frame structure factored base shear variance as a function of solidity ratio by
using Appendix 5A and Appendix 5B methods. It was further discovered that loads
generated by the Appendix 5B method are close to the others at very high solidity
ratios (greater than 0.8). In the range of 0.5-0.8, wind loads generated by the
Appendix 5B method are more conservative compared to other methods in this study.
While wind loads generated by each method are highly dependent on the structure’s

configurations, the results provided in this paper serve to give a fundamental concept
of how design wind loads would vary from using the available methods.
Figure 7. Comparison of Open Frame Structure Factored Base Shear vs. Solidity Ratio.
The new Appendix 5B method is found to be a simplified and convenient method for
Cf calculations, and gives reasonably close results to those presented in Chapter 5 and
Appendix 5A. From the authors’ perspective, Appendix 5B method can be useful for
preliminary design and analysis, such as projects in FEED stage, where detailed
analysis is not warranted.
Effect of Revised Gf and Cf Requirements for Vertical Vessels Using the

Simplified Method. Figure 8 shows the relationship between the factored base shear
and the height of a rigid vertical vessel. The computation is based on Wind Exposure
Category C and Risk Category III/IV. The base case (FVh1) considered a 100-ft-tall
vertical vessel, where its factored base shear was computed using the 1997
Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline and ASCE 7-05 with Gf = 0.85. Since the
vertical vessels studied were all relatively slender, it was of interest to the authors to
determine whether the nominally rigid vertical vessels [natural frequency greater than
one (1) Hz] in this study would also be sensitive to dynamic amplification of wind
forces. Therefore, the Gf factors were calculated for both the rigid and the flexible
vessels. The solid curves show the base shear percentage variance using different
codes and Gf = 0.85. When using the formula specified in ASCE 7, the computed Gf
values, which are mainly governed by the operating conditions in this study, vary
from 0.9-1.0 and corresponding base shears are plotted as dashed curves.
Figure 9 presents similar results for flexible vertical vessel. The base case (FVh2)
considered a 200-ft-tall vertical vessel, and its factored base shear was computed
using the 1997 Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline and ASCE 7-05. Gf values were
determined by considering the vessels as dynamically sensitive structures. For the
results determined from the 2011 Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline, Gf values
obtained were based on the governing empty or operating vessel frequency.

Figure 8. Rigid Vessel Base Shear (LRFD) vs. Vessel Height in US Inland Regions (Wind
Exposure Category C; Risk Category III/IV).
Figure 9. Flexible Vessel Base Shear (LRFD) vs. Vessel Height in US Inland Regions (Wind
Exposure Category C; Risk Category III/IV).
The detailed rigid and flexible vessel base shear deviations are tabulated in Table 1-2
and Table 1-3 of Appendix 1 respectively. As compared to the corresponding base

cases (by using the 1997 Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline and ASCE 7-05), the
factored vessel base shear increased approximately 29-34% when using the 2011
Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline and ASCE 7-05. The phenomenon can be
explained by the revised recommendation of considering vertical vessels as a rough
cylindrical surface for the cylinder, as compared to a moderately smooth cylindrical
surface as stated in the previous edition of the guideline. On the other hand, the
average reduction in factored base shear is approximately 12% when using the 2011
Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline and ASCE 7-10 for vertical vessels located
within the US inland regions.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Comparative wind load analysis study of three typical non-building structures − a
pipe rack, an open frame structure, vertical vessel on ground − using ASCE 7-05,
ASCE 7-10, as well as both 2007 and 2011 editions of Wind Loads for Petrochemical
and Other Industrial Facilities was presented. The following is a summary of the
findings based on the analysis and parameters studied in this paper:
1) When using the design wind maps in ASCE 7-10, it is difficult to accurately
obtain design wind speed for a particular location. It is recommended to use
“Wind Speed Web Site” provided by the Applied Technology Council to acquire
the site specific wind speed [Ref. 9].
2) Design wind loads based on Cf from ASCE 7-10 for open frame structures can
result in considerably lower wind loads than those generated using ASCE 7-05,
especially in high wind speed regions. Recommendations from Chapter 5 of the
2011 Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline should be considered.
3) The Appendix 5B method in the 2011 Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline is a
simplified and convenient method for Cf calculations, and gives reasonably close
results to those presented in Chapter 5 and Appendix 5A. The Appendix 5B
method provides results close to those using other methods at very high solidity
ratios, but they are more conservative at lower solidity ratios.
4) It was found that vertical vessels that are classified as “rigid,” according to ASCE
7, can have calculated Gf factors greater than 0.85. One should consider
computing the Gf factors for both empty and operating conditions using the
formula in ASCE 7.
5) When considering vertical vessels as a rough cylindrical surface according to the
2011 Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline and ASCE 7-05, design wind base
shear would increase by one-third; however, the increase would be less than one-
fifth when ASCE 7-10 is used.
The other changes of the 2011 Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline that directly
affect the wind base shear on non-building structures but are not covered in this paper
are as follows:
1) The equation for calculating the shielding of equipment inside open frame
structures has been updated and has become less conservative. [Section 5.2.6.2]
2) Provisions for partially-clad structures have been added. [Section 5.3]

3) The detailed method for calculating forces on vertical vessels includes an

amplification of force when large diameter pipes or neighboring vessels are
located within three diameters (similar to ASME STS-1). [Sections 5.4.1.4 and
5.4.1.5]
4) Provisions for cooling towers have been added. [Section 5.5]
5) Provisions for air cooled heat exchangers have been added. [Section 5.6]
6) The addition of special load combinations for new and existing structures.
[Section 4]
REFERENCES
[1] ASCE (2010). ASCE/SEI 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, Virginia.
[2] ASCE (2005). ASCE/SEI 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, Virginia.
[3] ASCE (2011). Wind Loads for Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities,
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, Virginia.
[4] ASCE (1997). Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities,
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, Virginia.
[5] RISA (2011). RISA-3D, Structural Analysis and Design Software, RISA
Technologies, Foothill Ranch, California.
[6] Amoroso, S. (2007). Wind Loads for Petrochemical Structures, Ph.D.

Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 263 p.
[7] Easley, J. (2011). “Reorganization and Modifications to the Wind Load Provisions
of ASCE 7-10.” Louisiana Civil Engineer - May 2011, ASCE Louisiana
Section, 19(3), 6-9.
[8] Cook, R., Griffis L., Vickery, P., and Stafford E. (2011). “ASCE 7-10 Wind
Loads.” Proceedings of the Structures Congress 2011, ASCE, 1440-1453.
[9] ATC (2011). “Wind Speed Web Site.” Windspeed by Location, Applied
Technology Council <http://www.atcouncil.org/windspeed/index.php> (Dec
20, 2011)

APPENDIX 1: COMPARISON TABLES
Table 1-1: Pipe Rack Wind Base Shear Comparison in Coastline Hurricane Regions
Percentage Differences in %, VASCE 7-10/VASCE 7-05
Location Risk Category I Risk Category II Risk Category III/IV
Galveston, TX 6.9% -5.9% -6.9%
Biloxi, MS 6.5% -1.1% 0.3%
Clearwater, FL 4.7% -7.9% -9.7%

Atlantic City, NJ -1.8% -22.6% -10.3%
Table 1-2: Rigid Vertical Vessel Example Wind Base Shear Average Variances Comparisons
Table 1-3: Flexible Vertical Vessel Example Wind Base Shear Average Variances Comparisons

Wind Loads On Non-Building Structures Using ASCE 7-10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wind Loads On Non-Building Structures Using ASCE 7-10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 1438

Wind Loads On Non-Building Structures Using ASCE 7-10

Structures Congress 2012

2010 edition of ASCE 7 (ASCE 7-10). Details of the reorganization and

(1) A typical rigid pipe rack structure located in various US regions.

NON-BUILDING STRUCTURES CONSIDERED

Structures Congress 2012

Figure 1. Pipe Rack Elevation View and Section View.

Figure 2. Open Frame Structure Elevation View.

Structures Congress 2012

Figure 3. Open Frame Structure Elevation

ASCE 7-05 ASCE 7-10

Structures Congress 2012

Hurricane-Prone Regions. The exposure categories in ASCE 7 are related to the

ASCE 7-05 ASCE 7-10

Structures Congress 2012

Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline Petrochemical Wind Load Guideline

Structures Congress 2012

Effect of Re-introduction of Exposure D for Coastal Areas in Hurricane-Prone

Structures Congress 2012

(a): Risk Category II

(b): Risk Category III/IV

Effect of Revised Cf Computation for Open Frame Structures. Figure 6 shows

Structures Congress 2012

Structures Congress 2012

Effect of Revised Gf and Cf Requirements for Vertical Vessels Using the

Structures Congress 2012

Structures Congress 2012

within the US inland regions.

Structures Congress 2012

3) The detailed method for calculating forces on vertical vessels includes an

[6] Amoroso, S. (2007). Wind Loads for Petrochemical Structures, Ph.D.

Structures Congress 2012

APPENDIX 1: COMPARISON TABLES

Clearwater, FL 4.7% -7.9% -9.7%

Structures Congress 2012

You might also like