EDITORIAL
Wind Loads for Temporary Structures: Making the Case
for Industrywide Standards
William B. Gorlin, P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
Vice President, Entertainment Division, McLaren Engineering Group
P.C., West Nyack, N.Y. E-mail: bgorlin@mgmclaren.com
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 175.100.48.20 on 09/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Engineers are well versed in designing and building structures to
comply with applicable codes. But one crucial area where we lack
definitive regulatory guidance is for temporary structures. Engi-
neers constantly ask themselves the question, Is this structure as
safe, as wind-resistant, and as cost-effective as we can make it?
Local building codes, preferences of the equipment owner, and
the engineer’s own professional judgment all factor into the equa-
tion, but we need more than an ad hoc system for determining
wind-load thresholds for all types of temporary structures. We
need industrywide standards that not only govern the safety of
these structures, but also balance costs with safety benefits.
Temporary structures encompass a wide range of items such as
concert and theatrical stages, tents, public art projects, temporary
roofs and shade structures, lighting and speaker towers, tempo-
rary grandstands and bleachers, and many other facilities. Some
building codes require temporary structures to comply with the
wind-load guidelines applied to permanent buildings, and others
leave this to the discretion of the building official. Accordingly,
engineers are designing temporary structures to be strong enough
to withstand once-a-century hurricanes when in fact these struc-
tures will be used for only a short period—sometimes just a day
or two.
If a hurricane were approaching, though, you would not erect
a temporary structure, nor would you have it sheltering people
during a heavy storm. In fact, strong winds would likely keep
people away from the event altogether and may well prompt
event owners to cancel or postpone the event. In any case, the
most these structures are likely to face is a thunderstorm, but
absent other guidelines, the building codes apparently require us
to design for hurricanes, which needlessly drives up costs without
increasing safety.
Building codes define the design loads that structures are sub-
ject to in a gamut of environmental conditions—wind, rain, snow,
varying temperatures, or earthquake. For wind loads, nearly all
states and municipalities have adopted codes that incorporate
ASCE 7, which sets parameters for minimum design loads on
buildings. Most building codes, however, do not specify require-
ments for temporary structures, whose lifespan ranges from one
day to several months. IBC 2006 states that structures erected for
less than 180 days as temporary, but does not provide further
guidance. Engineers may then look to another standard, ASCE 37,
which addresses design loads on permanent structures under
construction—short term, similar to temporary structures.
ASCE 37 incorporates provisions for adjusting wind loads to
lower them for short-term exposure during construction for up to
five years, which is relevant here because temporary structures
typically are erected for six weeks or less. Based on this standard,
the wind load applied to a structure under construction for less
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009 / 35
J. Archit. Eng., 2009, 15(2): 35-36
than six weeks is 56% of that applied to a permanent structure,
due to its reduced exposure to wind. Engineers have equated this
probability with that of a temporary structure erected for a similar
time.
While the ASCE standards offer direction on wind loads from
a strictly engineering standpoint, they fail to take into account the
human element. For instance, if a homeowner climbs an extension
ladder—a temporary structure—to clean the gutters on his roof,
he will not wait until a “56% of code wind” figure is reached
before descending the ladder. A strong enough breeze will coax
him down or discourage him from going up in the first place.
People use forecasting and good judgment in everyday circum-
stances to deploy temporary structures—village placards, farm-
ers’ market tents, shade structures, umbrellas—in wind speeds
much lower than codes stipulate. In almost all these scenarios, the
structures are dismantled in time.
Engineers attempt to apply this common sense approach to
more significant engineered structures. We must use our judgment
to arrive at a wind-speed threshold above which action is required
to eliminate risk. We must also establish the appropriate level of
manpower, equipment, and time to dismantle the assembly safely
and in a timely manner.
Such practical approaches are not entirely absent on the regu-
latory landscape. The entertainment industry, for example, pro-
mulgates a standard for temporary concert stage roofs that
considers the limited duration of exposure and human factors. The
standard, ESTA E-1.21–2006, should form the framework for the
development of a wider standard to address wind and other envi-
ronmental loads on temporary structures.
On the whole, however, scant rules-based guidance governs
the wind-resisting strength of temporary structures. Organizations
such as ASCE or ESTA 共Entertainment Services and Technology
Association兲 should take a lead role in establishing more compre-
hensive standards for temporary structures that consider factors
such as designing for a range of wind threshold levels, maximum
time for dismantling structures, and monitoring and operational
procedures. For instance, an anemometer 共wind gauge兲 should be
required on-site and monitored continuously, and weather fore-
casts should be reviewed routinely.
The following example illustrates the need for widely accepted
standards from an authoritative industry group. Let’s say a tower
is to be erected to raise a large video screen for an outdoor enter-
tainment event. If windy conditions are forecast, at what wind
speed should the video screen be taken down so it doesn’t collect
wind like a sail? The equipment owner may recommend a
minimum threshold—say, 40 miles per hour 共mph兲. Without es-
tablished guidelines, engineers would rely on that guidance com-
bined with their own professional judgment in determining
appropriate thresholds.
But this example prompts other questions: What is the safest
way to dismantle the screen? What personnel are needed? If the
wind doesn’t reach the 40 mph threshold, can the structure still be
taken down safely? When weather forecasts have predicted the
 wind condition, is there enough time from the forecast notice to
take it down? These questions emphasize the need for more de-
finitive, broad-based standards addressing various potential wind
thresholds, dismantlement times, and other concerns.
Minus clear-cut standards, some enlightened entities have
filled the void by setting their own prerequisites for wind resis-
tance. For example, one rigging equipment rental company allows
event producers to choose required ballast 共counterweight兲 for
wind thresholds of 40, 50, or 60 mph for a video screen. The
counterweight chosen depends on how much ballast the producer
is willing to pay for to accommodate a higher wind threshold. The
lower the wind threshold, the higher the probability of the wind
occurring.
Instances such as these are the exception, however. Those
charged with designing and building a temporary structure are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 175.100.48.20 on 09/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
often at the mercy of local building officials who may be unfa-
miliar with temporary wind loads and lack the engineering exper-
36 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009
J. Archit. Eng., 2009, 15(2): 35-36
tise to discern various wind-load scenarios. Event owners should
have defined parameters for the levels of financial exposure they
will face in dismantling operations compared with the cost of
upgrading to a higher wind threshold.
For each possible wind threshold—such as 40, 50, 60, and
70 mph—the standard should include the maximum time required
to dismantle the system, so that the structure can be taken down
safely before the wind is forecast or likely to arrive. The disman-
tling approach must be realistic to accomplish and properly docu-
mented. The threshold could also be staggered in steps, such as
lowering a video wall and speakers at 40 mph and dismantling the
entire truss structure at 60 mph.
Decisions on wind loads for temporary structures should not
be made on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. Conclusive standards
must be established to address different wind thresholds and time
schedules for dismantling, to achieve optimum safety, and to per-
mit cost-effective staging and operation.