几何尺寸与公差论坛

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 815|回复: 0

asce 7-05 wind load methods 1 2

[复制链接]
发表于 2009-9-7 13:14:23 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
asce 7-05 wind load methods # 1 & # 2
has anyone ever compared the results of these methods. the analytical method which is more detailed is very different from method # 1's simplified results. the mwfrs loads don't agree. any input would be appreciated.
cap4000,
the few projects that i have run both methods seem to indicate that method 2 results in lower base loads than method 1. my trials were done on smaller, two story office buildings. it appears to me that the lower loads in method 2 are a result of not having to use the higher loads in zones a & b on the end zones.
i practice in the puget sound area of washington where the design winds are only 85 to 90 mph. i don't know what the comparison would be for the higher wind speed areas of the country.
that would make sense.  method 1 is the simplified method.  so the loads are more conservative in order to envelope the results of a more rigorous analysis.
method 1 is based on scaled results from wind tunnel tests.  method 2 is analytical.  in some cases method 1 should give you better results the closer ou get to meeting the ideal conditions as used in the tests.
the same phylosophy is true for seismic when comparing the simplified and equivalent force methods.  simplified runs generally about 30 to 35% more.
mike mccann
mccann engineering
check out the link below and the seminar book which does a real nice job explaining the different methods. with typical square buildings under 60 feet high use method 1 and the charts provided in asce7-05 on pages 38 and 39. the simplified analytical method results and wind tunnel tests is where it all comes from.
it appears to me, something is amiss in the asce 7-05. figure 6-10 should state definitively whether the pressure shown is perpendicular to the surface (therefore horizontal & vertical components of the pressure should be calc'd using sine & cosines of the roof/surface angle) or it should state the contrary. as it reads right now, the figure is vague.
this is an email i recently sent to mehta & l. griffis, who are both on the asce 7 wind committee. i have yet to receive a reply.
it appears that fig 6-10 (external pressure coeff) can be used to calculate the columns of fig 6-2 using the givens on pg 283 of commentary as shown below:
where (1) gcpi= positive. (2) the positive direction is in the direction of coefficient 1 and up.
horizontal loads
p.a = qh[(gcpf.1e-gcpi)+(-gcpf.4e+gcpi)]
p.b = qh[(gcpf.2e-gcpi)+(-gcpf.3e+gcpi)]
p.c = qh[(gcpf.1-gcpi)+(-gcpf.4+gcpi)]
p.d = qh[(gcpf.2-gcpi)+(-gcpf.3+gcpi)]
vertical loads
p.e = qh[(gcpf.2e-gcpi)]
p.f = qh[(gcpf.3e-gcpi)]
p.g = qh[(gcpf.2-gcpi)]
p.h = qh[(gcpf.3-gcpi)]
however, where as the pressures found in fig 6-2 are based on horizontal and vertical projected surfaces, fig 6-10 appears to be based on pressure coefficients normal to each surface (as indicated in your guide to the use...of asce 7-98 fig 3.8.2 etc..). the later would suggest that the vertical and horizontal components of pressure coefficents should be used as follows:
horizontal loads
p.a = qh[(gcpf.1e-gcpi)+(-gcpf.4e+gcpi)]
p.b = qh[(gcpf.2e-gcpi)+(-gcpf.3e+gcpi)]sin(roof angle)
p.c = qh[(gcpf.1-gcpi)+(-gcpf.4+gcpi)]
p.d = qh[(gcpf.2-gcpi)+(-gcpf.3+gcpi)]sin(roof angle)
vertical loads
p.e = qh[(gcpf.2e-gcpi)]cos(roof angle)
p.f = qh[(gcpf.3e-gcpi)]cos(roof angle)
p.g = qh[(gcpf.2-gcpi)]cos(roof angle)
p.h = qh[(gcpf.3-gcpi)]cos(roof angle)
[if anyone knows someone on the asce 7-05 committee, i would appreciate their current email address in an effort to resolve this. or you can ask the question at an asce 7 seminar.]
njengineer1,
i think that in figure 6-2 method 1, note #1 sez the pressures shown are applied to the horizontal & vertical projections. in figure 6-10 method 2 (low-rise walls & roofs), note #1 sez "plus and minus signs signify pressures acting toward and away from the surfaces, respectively".it is a poorly written sentence but if one compares the two notes i think that the pressures in figure 6-10 are to be applied perpendicular to the roof surfaces.
please keep us posted if you ever hear back from the dark lords that created that mess called asce-7.
oldpapermarker
in an effort to better understand all the wind and seismic provisions of asce7-05 i have put together 2-24x36 sheets and all the different methods and formulas right on them. it consolidates everything onto one sheet so that i don't have to keep flipping pages. i also have flow charts set up. in addition i also have meca software to calculate the loads. a lot of time is really required unlike the old boca code. i agree what a mess.
i know my original post was a bit wordy, but the short of it is that fig 6-2 is calculated using fig 6-10. try it yourself.
given: gable roofed building mean roof height 30 feet,  i=1, kz=0.7, kzt=1, kd=0.85, v=100mph, roof angle =20 deg. enclosed building gcpi= +/-0.18
qh=0.00256(0.7)(1)(0.85)(100)^2(1)=15.23 psf
p=qh[(gcpf)-(gcpi)]
use gcpf from figure 6-10 (transverse direction) and fig 6-2 nomenclature and adding contributions from both front and back wall(roof) surfaces with the proper signs to get fig 6-2 pressure values.
                               calc press/actual fig 6-2
p.a=15.23[(0.8-0.18)+(0.64+0.18)]   = 21.93/22.0      
p.b=15.23[(-1.07-0.18)+(0.69+0.18)] = -5.79/ -5.8   
p.c=15.23[(0.53-0.18)+(0.43+0.18)]  = 14.62/14.6
p.d=15.23[(-0.69-0.18)+(0.48+0.18)] = -3.20/ -3.2
p.e=15.23[(-1.07-0.18)]             =-19.04/-19.1
p.f=15.23[(-0.69-0.18)]             =-13.25/-13.3
p.g=15.23[(-0.69-0.18)]             =-13.25/-13.3
p.h=15.23[(-0.48-0.18)]             =-10.05/-10.1
the problem here is that no sine/cosine was used to combine the vertical or horizontal components of the roof surface. this implies the pressures are not taken perpendicular to the roof surfaces as was done in mehta's asce 7-98 wind guide but are oriented with the ground as is done in fig 6-2. that is why i think something is amiss.
njengineer1
the building you are using i would recommend the pressure load charts provided with simplified method. you are using the simplified analytical method # 2 which in this case is quite intensive. the basis of the asce7-05 roof loads comes from wind tunnel tests. they even have 2 load cases for the steeper roof angles. don't use the sine or cosine.
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

QQ|Archiver|小黑屋|几何尺寸与公差论坛

GMT+8, 2025-1-11 05:38 , Processed in 0.039036 second(s), 19 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4 Licensed

© 2001-2023 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表