C26.

4 GENERAL of zones affected by nonhurricane winds only and by both

hurricane and non-hurricane winds as a function of mean
C26.4.3 Wind Pressures Acting on Opposite Faces of Each
recurrence interval (MRI).
Building Surface. Section 26.4.3 is included in the standard to
3. Each map has the same MRI for design wind speeds in
ensure that internal and external pressures acting on a building
those two zones.
surface are taken into account by determining a net pressure from
4. By providing the design wind speed directly, the maps
the algebraic sum of those pressures. For additional information
more clearly inform owners and their consultants about the
on the application of the net C&C wind pressure acting across a
storm intensities for which the buildings and other struc-
multilayered building envelope system, including air-permeable
tures are designed.
cladding, refer to Section C30.1.1.
Selection of Return Periods. The methodology for selection
C26.5 WIND HAZARD MAP of the return periods used in ASCE 7-10 (Vickery et al. 2010) has
been modified for ASCE 7-16. In order to determine a return
C26.5.1 Basic Wind Speed. All the wind speed maps in period for each Risk Category consistent with the target reliabil-
ASCE 7-16 have been updated, based on (i) a new analysis of non- ities in Table C1.3-1, the ASCE 7 Load Combinations Subcom-
hurricane wind data available through 2010, and (ii) improvements mittee conducted a reliability analysis that incorporated new data
to the hurricane simulation model, which better account for the on the directionality factor. The nominal design value K d = 0.85
translation speed effects of fast-moving storms and the transition was based on a relatively simple directional analysis conducted as
from hurricanes to extratropical storms in the northern latitudes part of the original ANSI A58/ASCE 7 load factor development.
(i.e., transition from warm core to cold core low-pressure systems). One of the underlying assumptions of the original analysis was
Separate wind speed maps are now provided for Risk Category III that the wind directionality factor, K d = 0.85, was unbiased be-
and Risk Category IV buildings and structures, recognizing the cause only limited data on the effects of wind directionality were
higher reliabilities required for essential facilities and facilities available at the time. More recent research by Isyumov et al.
whose failure could pose a substantial hazard to the community. (2013), simulating three building geometries at two different
Location-specific basic wind speeds may be determined using locations, indicates that the ASCE 7 nominal values of K d are
http://windspeedatcouncil.org/windspeed. This website provides affected by a bias (defined as the ratio of the mean value, μK d , to
wind speeds to the nearest mile per hour based on a defined the nominal value, K dn ). The nominal value of K d is conservative
location using either latitude/longitude or an address. The website for both tropical and extratropical winds because the mean value is
results use the same data used to develop the paper maps currently less than the nominal value. Additional reliability analyses were
in the standard. Wind speeds are provided to the user for each of performed to examine the effect of K d on the return period and
the Risk Categories, each of the serviceability periods, and a com- associated reliability. The subcommittee found that the following
parison speed for ASCE 7-10, ASCE 7-05 (3-s peak gust), and return periods for each Risk Category are consistent with the target
ASCE 7-93 (fastest mile). reliabilities in the first row of Table 1.3-1: Risk Category I:
In the 2016 edition, microzoned “effective” wind speed maps 300 years; Risk Category II: 700 years; Risk Category III:
for Hawaii were added in accordance with the strength design 1,700 years; and Risk Category IV: 3,000 years.
return periods, including the effect of topography. The Hawaii Wind Speed. The wind speed maps of Figs. 26.5-1 and 26.5-2
effective wind speeds are algebraically formulated to include the present basic wind speeds for the contiguous United States,
macroscale and mesoscale terrain-normalized values of K zt and Alaska, Hawaii, and other selected locations. The wind speeds
K d (Chock etpal. 2005), i.e., V effective is the basic windspeed V correspond to 3-s gust speeds at 33 ft (10 m) above ground for
multiplied by (K zt × K d ∕0.85), so that the engineer is permitted Exposure Category C. Because the wind speeds of Figs. 26.5-1
to more conveniently use the standard values of K zt of 1.0 and K d and 26.5-2 reflect conditions at airports and similar open-country
as given in Table 26.6-1. Note that local site conditions of finer exposures, they do not account for the effects of significant
toposcale, such as ocean promontories and local escarpments, topographic features such as those described in Section 26.8. In
should still be examined. Spatial resolution scales for digital ASCE 7-16, wind speeds in nonhurricane-prone areas of the
modeling, including terrain effects, are conventionally described contiguous United States are mapped using contours to better
in the recognized literature as follows: reflect regional variations in the extreme wind climate. Point
values are provided to aid interpolation, in a style similar to that
Scale Spatial Resolution
used in the ASCE 7 seismic hazard maps. Summaries of the data
Toposcale 32–656 ft (10–200 m) and methods used to estimate both the nonhurricane and hurri-
Mesoscale 656 ft–3.1 mi (200 m–5 km) cane wind speeds are given below, along with a description of
Macroscale 3.1 mi–311 mi (5–500 km) how these wind speeds are combined to make the final maps.
The decision in ASCE 7-10 to move to separate strength Detailed descriptions are provided in Pintar et al. (2015) and
Lombardo et al. (2016).
design wind speed maps for different Risk Categories in con-
junction with a wind load factor of 1.0, instead of using a single Nonhurricane Wind Speeds. The nonhurricane wind speeds
map in conjunction with an Importance Factor and a load factor for the contiguous United States were estimated from peak gust
of 1.6, relied on several considerations: speed data collected at 575 meteorological stations. The data at
each station were extracted from the meteorological records and
1. A strength-level design wind speed map brings the wind classified by storm type, thunderstorm or nonthunderstorm after
loading approach in line with that used for seismic loads, in removal of gusts associated with tropical cyclones (i.e., hurri-
that they both are aimed at achieving uniform risk rather canes and tropical storms). Recorded peak gusts from each
than uniform hazard and eliminate the use of a load factor station were corrected as needed to standardize the observations
for strength design. to equivalent 3-s peak gusts at 10 m (33 ft) height over open
2. Having separate maps removes inconsistencies that oc- (Exposure C) terrain. At each station, there were at least 15 years
curred with the use of Importance Factors, which varied of data, and there were sufficient numbers of both thunderstorm
with location, and allows for the geographical description and nonthunderstorm observations to account for their potential

734 STANDARD ASCE/SEI 7-16

differences when estimating wind speeds with specified mean where
recurrence intervals. The estimation was performed in two stages.
Pa (v > V) is the annual exceedance probability for the
In the first stage, a peaks-over-thresholds (POT) model was fitted
combined wind hazards,
to the data from each station. The POT model used was the
PNH (v < V) is the annual nonexceedance probability for
Poisson process model first described in Pickands (1971) and
nonhurricane winds, and
extended in Smith (1989) to allow the parameters of the Poisson
PH (v < V) is the annual nonexceedance probability for
process to be time dependent. This model allowed for differenti-
hurricane winds.
ation between thunderstorm and nonthunderstorm winds. The
Poisson process has a tail length parameter that may be set to The combined winds were interpolated to yield the combined
zero, leading to Gumbel-like tails for the distribution of wind wind hazard curves for MRIs associated with each of the wind
speeds. Such distributional tails were used in this work, consis- speed maps. In cases where the hurricane contours are unchanged
tent with past practice in wind engineering. The fitted POT from ASCE 7-10, the shape files from these previous maps were
models allowed for the estimation of wind speeds for any used to ensure continuity between the maps.
required mean recurrence interval at all stations. In the second Correlation of Basic Wind Speed Map with the Saffir-
stage, local regression (Cleveland and Devlin 1988) was used to Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. Hurricane intensities are
interpolate wind speeds at all points of a fine regular grid reported by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) according to
covering the contiguous United States for all required mean the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale (NHC 2015), shown in
recurrence intervals. This had the effect of spatially smoothing Table C26.5-1. This scale has found broad usage by hurricane
the noisy station estimates. The smoothed wind speed estimates forecasters and local and federal agencies responsible for short-
provided the basis for creating the isotach maps. range evacuation of residents during hurricane alerts, as well as
Limited data were available on the Washington and Oregon long-range disaster planners and the news media. The scale
coast. In this region, a special wind region was defined to permit contains five categories of hurricanes and distinguishes them
local jurisdictions to select speeds based on local knowledge and based on wind speed intensity.
analysis. Speeds in the Aleutian Islands and in the interior of The wind speeds used in the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind
Alaska were established from gust data. Insufficient data were Scale are defined in terms of a sustained wind speed with a 1-min
available for a detailed coverage of the mountainous regions, averaging time at 33 ft (10 m) over open water. The ASCE 7
so gust data in Alaska were not corrected for potential terrain standard by comparison uses a 3-s gust speed at 33 ft (10 m)
influence. It is possible that wind speeds in parts of Alaska would above ground in Exposure C (defined as the basic wind speed,
be smaller if the topographic wind speed-up effect on recorded and shown in the wind speed map, Figs. 26.5-1 and 26.5-2). The
wind speeds were taken into account. In Alaska, the maps for sustained wind speed over water in Table C26.5-2 cannot be
each return period were determined by multiplying the 50-year converted to a peak gust wind speed using the Durst curve of
MRI contours given in ASCE 7-10 Fig. CC-3 by a factor, FRA , Fig. C26.5-1, which is only valid for wind blowing over open
equal to terrain (Exposure C). An approximate relationship between
the wind speeds in ASCE 7 and the Saffir-Simpson scale, based
FRA = 0.45 þ 0.085 ln (12T) (C26.5-1) on recent data which indicate that the sea surface roughness
remains approximately constant for mean hourly speeds in
excess of 67 mi∕h (30 m∕s), is shown in Table C26.5-2. The
where T is the return period in years (Peterka and Shahid 1998).
table provides the sustained wind speeds of the Saffir-Simpson
The resulting contours were interpolated to the nearest 10 mi∕h,
Hurricane Wind Scale over water, equivalent-intensity gust wind
except for the innermost and outermost contours, which were
speeds over water, and equivalent-intensity gust wind speeds
rounded to the nearest 5 mi∕h.
over land. For a storm of a given intensity, Table C26.5-2 takes
Hurricane Wind Speeds. The hurricane wind speeds are
into consideration both the reduction in wind speed as the storm
based on the results of a Monte Carlo simulation model
moves from over water to over land because of changes in
generally described in Applied Research Associates (2001),
surface roughness, and the change in the gust factor as the storm
Vickery and Wadhera (2008a, b), and Vickery et al. (2009a, b,
moves from over water to over land (Vickery et al 2009a; Simiu
2010). The hurricane simulation model used to develop the
et al. 2007).
wind speeds in ASCE 7-16 included two updates to the model
Table C26.5-3 shows the design wind speed from the ASCE 7
used for ASCE 7-10. A reduced translation speed effect for
basic wind speed maps (Figs. 26.5-1 and 26.5-2) for various
fast-moving storms (NRC 2011) was incorporated, and a
simple extratropical transition model was also implemented,
where the surface winds are reduced linearly by up to 10%
over the latitude range 37 N to 45 N. This reduction approx-
imates transitioning from a hurricane boundary layer to an Table C26.5-1 Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale
extratropical storm boundary layer. The effects of the model
revisions are to slightly reduce hurricane speeds in the north- Hurricane Sustained Wind Types of Damage Due
east, extending from Maine to Virginia. Category Speeda mph (m∕s) to Hurricane Winds
Combination of Nonhurricane and Hurricane Wind Speed
Data. Nonhurricane wind speeds and hurricane wind speeds were 1 74–95 (33–42) Very dangerous winds will produce
estimated for return periods ranging from 10 years to 100,000 years. some damage
The nonhurricane and hurricane winds were then combined as 2 96–110 (43–49) Extremely dangerous winds will cause
statistically independent events using Eq. (C26.5-2), the same extensive damage
general approach that has been used in previous editions of 3 111–129 (50–57) Devastating damage will occur
ASCE 7: 4 130–156 (58–69) Catastrophic damage will occur
5 ≥157 (70) Highly catastrophic damage will occur
Pa (v > V) = 1 − PNH (v < V)PH (v < V) (C26.5-2) a
1-minute average wind speed at 33 ft (10 m) above open water.

Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures 735
92 Horvilleur et al.
 No further reproduction or distribution is permitted.
PART 2: LOADS & ANALYSIS 77

CODE COMMENTARY
Table 6.6.3.1.1(b)—Alternative moments of inertia other than ultimate, Pu and Mu should be replaced with their
for elastic analysis at factored load appropriate values at the desired load level.
Alternative value of I for elastic analysis
Member Minimum I Maximum

Columns  Ast   Mu Pu 
0.35Ig  0.80 + 25 A   1 − P h − 0.5 P  I g 0.875Ig
 g   o 
and walls u

Beams, flat
 bw 
plates, and 0.25Ig (0.10 + 25ρ)  1.2 − 0.2  Ig 0.5Ig
 d
flat slabs
Notes: For continuous flexural members, I shall be permitted to be taken as the average

6 Analysis
of values obtained for the critical positive and negative moment sections. Pu and Mu
shall be calculated from the load combination under consideration, or the combination
of Pu and Mu that produces the least value of I.

6.6.3.1.2 For factored lateral load analysis, it shall be R6.6.3.1.2 The lateral deflection of a structure under
permitted to assume I = 0.5Ig for all members or to calculate factored lateral loads can be substantially different from
I by a more detailed analysis, considering the effective stiff- that calculated using linear analysis, in part because of the
ness of all members under the loading conditions. inelastic response of the members and the decrease in effective
stiffness. Selection of the appropriate effective stiffness for
reinforced concrete frame members has dual purposes: 1)
to provide realistic estimates of lateral deflection; and 2) to
determine deflection-imposed actions on the gravity system
of the structure. A detailed nonlinear analysis of the structure
would adequately capture these two effects. A simple way
to estimate an equivalent nonlinear lateral deflection
using linear analysis is to reduce the modeled stiffness of
the concrete members in the structure. The type of lateral
load analysis affects the selection of appropriate effective
stiffness values. For analyses with wind loading, where
it is desirable to prevent nonlinear action in the structure,
effective stiffnesses representative of pre-yield behavior may
be appropriate. For earthquake-induced loading, the level of
nonlinear deformation depends on the intended structural
performance and earthquake recurrence interval.
Varying degrees of confidence can be obtained from a
simple linear analysis based on the computational rigor
used to define the effective stiffness of each member. This
stiffness can be based on the secant stiffness to a point at or
beyond yield or, if yielding is not expected, to a point before
yield occurs.

6.6.3.1.3 For factored lateral load analysis of two-way R6.6.3.1.3 Analysis of buildings with two-way slab
slab systems without beams, which are designated as part of systems without beams requires that the model represents
the seismic-force-resisting system, I for slab members shall the transfer of lateral loads between vertical members. The
be defined by a model that is in substantial agreement with model should result in prediction of stiffness in substantial
results of comprehensive tests and analysis and I of other agreement with results of comprehensive tests and analysis.
frame members shall be in accordance with 6.6.3.1.1 and Several acceptable models have been proposed to accomplish
6.6.3.1.2. this objective (Vanderbilt and Corley 1983; Hwang and
Moehle 2000; Dovich and Wight 2005).

6.6.3.2 Service load analysis R6.6.3.2 Service load analysis

6.6.3.2.1 Immediate and time-dependent deflections due

to gravity loads shall be calculated in accordance with 24.2.

American Concrete Institute – Copyrighted © Material – www.concrete.org