Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C PracticalSolutions Guglielmo Mar18 PDF
C PracticalSolutions Guglielmo Mar18 PDF
E
recommendations to ASCE 7 for incorporation there is more likelihood of the rooftop
into ASCE 7-16. structure receiving concurrent peak pres-
R
This article discusses several common non-build- sures on the windward and leeward surfaces.
ing structures, how they are currently addressed in 2) Higher turbulence is present on the
U
ASCE 7, and provides suggestions for addressing building riroof.
ht
y g
T
areas where the code is silent. Cop
3) Accelerated wind speeds are present
on the roof.
Rooftop Units
Mechanical units are routinely placed on the roof
U C n
Wind Loads on iNon-Building Structures
e
R
of buildings. While engineers are accustomed to
z
T
calculating and accommodating for the gravity
loads of these units, the proper application of
g a
S
By Emily M. Guglielmo, S.E.,
wind loads to rooftop units has historically been The lateral force, Fh, on rooftop structures
a source of confusion. a
and equipment is determined by the following
P.E., C.E., F.SEI
ASCE 7-05 provided an equation to generate
a horizontal Main Wind Force Resisting System m
equation:
Fh = qh(GCr)Af (ASCE 7-10 Equation 29.5-2)
(MWFRS) wind load on rooftop equipment. qh = velocity pressure evaluated at the mean roof
While the commentary alluded to a high uplift height of the building
component of wind loads that should be consid- Ar = horizontal projected area of rooftop structure
ered in the design of rooftop structures, ASCE or equipment
7-05 provisions did not provide a method for GCr = 1.9 for rooftop structures and equipment
calculating this uplift. with Af less than (0.1Bh). GCr shall be
In ASCE 7-10, the design wind force for permitted to be reduced linearly from 1.9 Emily M. Guglielmo is a Principal
rooftop structures was revised to include a to 1.0 as the value of Af is increased from with Martin/Martin, Inc.
vertical component of wind force based on (0.1Bh) to (Bh). managing their San Francisco
research, recently completed at the time, from The vertical force, Fv, on rooftop structures Bay Area office. Emily is the
the University of Western Ontario. Also, a and equipment is determined by the following secretary of the NCSEA Wind
new section was added for determining the equation: Engineering Committee and serves
Component and Cladding (C&C) loads on Fv = qh(GCr)Ar (ASCE 7-10 Equation 29.5-3) on the ASCE 7-22 wind loads sub-
rooftop structures and equipment. This section qh = velocity pressure evaluated at the mean roof committee. She may be reached at
is particularly useful for engineers designing height of the building eguglielmo@martinmartin.com.
the actual mechanical equipment enclosure Ar = horizontal projected area of rooftop structure
or its anchorage. or equipment
It is important to note that the applicability GCr = 1.5 for rooftop structures and equipment
of rooftop structures and equipment provisions with Af less than (0.1BL). GCr shall be
in ASCE 7-10 was limited to structures less permitted to be reduced linearly from 1.5
than or equal to 60 feet in height. While this to 1.0 as the value of Af is increased from
covers the majority of buildings designed in (0.1BL) to (BL).
the United States, it does leave a significant The values of GCr take into account the higher
gap for the design engineer when generating rooftop pressures, discussed above. As the rooftop
wind loads on rooftop equipment for structures equipment size grows relative to the building, the
over 60 feet. ASCE 7-16 removes this 60-foot values of GCr decrease.
continued on next page
STRUCTURE magazine 9
While this bounded solution provides some
guidance for the engineer, it can overesti-
mate the total uplift on a canopy at the top
of a building. Further, it does not provide
direction for canopies located mid-height of
a building.
ASCE 7-16 introduces a procedure for
attached canopies and awnings. These pro-
visions provide a chart to find both total
downward and upward pressures on a canopy,
in addition to a chart to find separate pres-
GC for rooftop structures. sures on the upper and lower surfaces of a
canopy. To the discerning eye, these charts
loads applied to the equipment being screened. yield similar pressure coefficients as the study
Rooftop Screen walls Preliminary findings suggest that fully enclosed presented above.
Mechanical equipment screens commonly screen wall configurations do lower wind loads It is important®to note that the provisions of
E
are used to conceal plumbing, electrical, or on the equipment, while partially enclosed ASCE 7-16 relating to canopies are applica-
mechanical equipment from view. Historically, screen configurations do not provide signifi- ble only to buildings 60 feet or less in height.
R
ASCE 7 has not provided guidance on what cant wind load reduction. Also, the screen type It is the intent to expand these provisions
wind pressure to apply to these rooftop does not significantly change wind loads on the in future codes to encompass canopies on
U
screens. Several approaches have been used equipment being rscreened.
ht The second phase taller buildings.
y ig
T
within the industry, including applying parapet Cop
of the study focuses on the wind loads on the
pressures, using the solid-freestanding wall screen walls themselves. Results of this phase
C
provisions, and applying the rooftop structures have not yet been released.
Tall Parapets
ne
U
and equipment provisions (discussed above). Exterior walls are often cantilevered beyond
Little research is currently available to provide the roof surface to create a parapet. These
Canopies
i
R
guidance for determining wind loads on screen parapets may serve many purposes, including
z
T
walls and equipment behind screens. Canopies are another example of building fall arrest, flashing termination, fire resistance,
The ASCE 7-16 commentary to Section a
components that are commonly encountered or visual screening. In recent years, parapet
ag
S
29.5.1 suggests that the provisions for rooftop by structural engineers but lack clear guid- heights have become increasingly taller, often
structures and equipment be used to generate ance for applying wind loads. However, even to achieve visual screening of rooftop equip-
wind forces on screen walls located away from
the edge of a building. m
when the code lacks direct guidance, there
are often ways to interpolate and extrapolate
ment. Engineers have pondered the effects
of these taller parapets and whether they war-
Fh = q h(GCr)Af (ASCE 7-10 Equation portions of the code to gain an understand- rant wind load increases, decreases, and step
29.5-2) ing of appropriate loading on commonly functions. The current parapet provisions of
The commentary also alludes to the fact encountered conditions. ASCE 7 do not provide guidance on limita-
that screen walls located close to a building Studying and understanding Table 27.4-1, tions or suggestions for applying wind loads
edge should be designed for parapet pressures. which is one of the most long-standing to very tall parapets.
To quantify the appropriate distance from a Tables in ASCE 7, provides an excellent It is important to understand the history
building edge to differentiate between “para- basis for the design of canopies. For this of those provisions to provide the context
pet” and “rooftop structures and equipment” instance, the most important value in Table for the parapet provision of ASCE 7. While
pressures, the boundary between corner and 27.4-1 is the windward wall pressure coef- engineers understood that increased para-
edge wind zones (zones 2 and 3) versus typi- ficient, Cp = 0.8. pet wind pressures were a real phenomenon
cal roof zones (zone 1) provides a reasonable When designing a canopy, it is important to worthy of consideration, there were no pro-
delineation. Therefore, a suggested practice realize wind loads can act in a downward or visions for wind loads on parapets before
would be that screen walls located in Zones upward direction. Depending on the loca- ASCE 7-02. In ASCE 7-02, a method for
2 and 3 should be designed for parapet pres- tion of the canopy, it is possible for either of generating wind forces on parapets was intro-
sures, while screen walls located in Zone 1 these two load cases to control. To bound duced based on the committee’s collective
can be engineered for a “rooftop structures the solution, consider two extreme cases: 1) experience, intuition, and judgment. In
and equipment” pressure. a canopy at the base of a tall building, and 2) ASCE 7-05, these provisions were updated
Research is currently underway to help advance a canopy at the top of a tall building. with research from University of Western
our understanding and support updating code For the first case, the downdraft of wind Ontario and Concordia University.
provisions for rooftop screen walls and the flowing down the face of the wall imposes a There are many studies on the effects of
equipment behind the screens. The Insurance pressure downward on the top of a canopy parapets on roof wind loads, including varied
Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) (downward Cp = 0.8). For the second case, parapet height. However, primarily due to
Research Center and the American Society of wind flows up the face of the building and instrumentation limitations, there are limited
Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning applies an uplift pressure on the underside studies on wind forces on the parapet itself.
Engineers (ASHRAE) have recently completed of the canopy (upward Cp = 0.8) that could For the tests that do exist, results suggest that
the first phase of a relevant study. It focused combine with suction at the upper surface wind loads on parapets are independent of
on the effects of rooftop screens on the wind of the canopy. parapet height (Mans et al., 2001).
Conclusions
There are many frequently encountered
non-building structures which require
design with appropriate level wind forces.
As discussed above, ASCE 7 attempts to
Use Cp = 0.80 (same as windward wall) Use Cp = 0.80 (same as windward wall) on the bottom address some of® these commonly encoun-
on the top of canopy of the canopy plus the roof uplift on the top tered conditions, including canopies,
E
Pressure coefficient for attached canopies. rooftop equipment on buildings over 60
R
feet in height, rooftop screen walls, and
• Arrays with tilted panels on flat or low- solar PV, with future versions. Even when
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Panels
U
slope roof buildings the code does not directly address a con-
ht
The rapid rise of renewable energy has led • Parallel-to-roof
yrig(flush-mounted) arrays on dition, it is important to understand the
T
Cop
to an increase in rooftop-mounted solar sloped roofs background and intent of the Code so
C
photovoltaic arrays in both commercial and • Ground-mounted solar arrays engineers can extrapolate to find an appro-
residential applications. While the code has The SEAOC PV guide does not cover the priate solution.▪
e
U
not directly addressed these solar PV panels, following Solar PV applications:
engineers have either forced creative imple- • Roof-mounted systems with tilted panels
i n
R az
mentation of ASCE 7 pressure coefficients that are not low-profile The online version of the article contains
T
or used Wind Design for Low Profile Solar • Arrays on other roof shapes (e.g., hip, the full reference for (Mans et al., 2001).
ag
S
Photovoltaic Arrays on Flat Roofs, published gable, saw-tooth, etc.) Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
by the Structural Engineers Association
of California (SEAOC).
The SEAOC PV committee was
formed in September 2011, with the
m
goal of addressing the lack of require-
ments in the code for PV systems.
In 2012, SEAOC published two
guides: PV1-2012: Structural Seismic
Requirements and Commentary for
Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic Arrays and
R E
U
t
righ
T
y
Cop
U C i n e
S T R m
a g a z