The Evolution of Wind Provisions

in U.S. Standards and Codes

by S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D.

U.S. Wind Standards

Modern wind design for buildings started in the U.S. with the
1972 publication by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) of ANSI A58.1, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures. The 1972 standard represented a
quantum leap in sophistication as compared to thencontemporary practice but was plagued with ambiguities,
inconsistencies in terminology and a format that permitted
misinterpretation of certain provisions. The 1982 revision of
the ANSI standard was largely free of the ambiguities and
inconsistencies of A58.1-1972 and provided an innovative
approach to the determination wind forces for components
and cladding of buildings based on the aerodynamics of wind
pressure around building corners, eaves and ridge areas, as
well as the effects of area averaging on pressures.
Maintenance of the standard was subsequently taken over
by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). ASCE
7-88, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, contained only minor modifications to the wind
provisions, and no changes were made in ASCE 7-93.

ASCE 7-95
The next significant update of the U.S. wind provisions
appeared in ASCE 7-95which marked the first use of 3second gust wind speed, rather than fastest-mile wind
speed, as the basis of design.
The averaging time implicit in fastest-mile wind speed is
the period it takes for a mile of wind to pass through an
anemometer: typically between 30 and 60 seconds. Because
average wind velocity increases as the averaging time
decreases, the design wind speed increased for the vast
majority of the country from 70 miles per hour to 90 miles
per hour (in the west, roughly in the Pacific time zone, it
typically increased to 85 miles per hour). Adjustments were
made to key coefficients in order not to end up with significantly greater design wind pressures, including velocity
46 Building Safety Journal December 2006

pressure exposure, gust effect factors, and internal and

external pressure that included gust effects. Among other
significant changes, provisions were added for wind
speed-up over isolated hills and escarpments by including a
topographic effect factor in the expression for the design
wind pressure.
New provisions were also added for full and partial
loading on the main wind force-resisting system (MWFRS)
of buildings with mean roof heights greater than 60 feet,
thereby requiring consideration of wind-induced torsions.
Finally, an alternate (low-rise, analytical) procedure based
on the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA)
Metal Building Systems Manual was added for determining
external loads on the MWFRSs of buildings having mean
roof height not exceeding 60 feet.

ASCE 7-98
The basic wind-speed map given in ASCE 7-98 was updated based on revised analysis of hurricane wind speeds,
resulting in significantly lower design wind speeds in inland
Florida.
The wind directionality factor, Kd, was also introduced in
ASCE 7-98 to address the practical fact that wind seldom
strikes along the most critical direction of a building because the wind direction changes from one instant to the
next. This had previously been accounted for by a relatively
low load factor of 1.3 on the effect of wind in strength
design load combinations, but the ASCE 7 Committee
received comments that engineers using allowable stress
design (ASD) could not factor in wind directionality. The
Committee responded by adding Kd = 0.85 to the definition
of wind pressure and adjusting the 1.3 load factor up to 1.6
for strength design. Note that a load factor of 1.53 (1.3/0.85)
would have maintained the status quo: the revision resulted
in an effective 5-percent increase under strength design,
whereas for ASD the result was a 15-percent decrease.

In addition, the definitions of Exposures C and D were

changed slightly to allow the shorelines in hurricane-prone
regions to be classified as Exposure C and new definitions
and a simplified design procedure was introduced for relatively common low-rise (mean roof height not exceeding 30
feet), regularly shaped, simple-diaphragm buildings.
Another first in ASCE 7-98 was the organization of
design provisions by method: Method 1Simplified Procedure, Method 2Analytical Procedure, and Method 3Wind
Tunnel Procedure. Method 2 contained two separate and
distinct procedures under the same headingthe general
analytical procedure, applicable to buildings of all heights,
and the low-rise analytical procedure, applicable to
buildings having mean roof height not exceeding 60 feet.
An additional, very important, provision was introduced
requiring that glazing in the lower 60 feet of Category II, III
or IV buildings in defined wind-borne debris regions be
impact-resistant or protected with impact-resistant covering, and that such glazing which receives positive external
pressure be assumed to be an opening for design purposes.

Table 1. Surface Roughness Categories

of ASCE 7-02 and 7-05.
SURFACE
ROUGHNESS
CATEGORY

DESCRIPTION

Urban and suburban areas, wooded areas

or other terrain with numerous closely
spaced obstructions having the size of
single-family dwellings or larger.

Open terrain with scattered obstructions

having heights generally less than 30 feet.
This category includes flat open country,
grandstands and all water surfaces in hurricane-prone regions.

Flat, unobstructed areas and water surfaces

outside hurricane-prone regions. This category includes smooth mud flats, salt flats
and unbroken ice.

ASCE 7-02
The simplified design procedure (Method 1) was replaced
in ASCE 7-02 by a slightly modified version of that given
in Section 1609.6 of the 2000 International Building Code
(IBC). The IBC procedure was based on the low-rise analytical procedure of ASCE 7, and its applicability is broader
than that of ASCE 7-98.
ASCE 7-02 also required that a ground surface roughness
within each 45-degree sector be determined for a distance
upwind of the site. Three surface roughness categories were
defined, as shown in Table 1, and three exposure categories
were defined in terms of the three roughness categories, as

Table 2. Exposure Categories

of ASCE 7-02 and 7-05.
EXPOSURE
CATEGORY

DESCRIPTION

Surface Roughness B prevails in the

upwind direction for at least 2,630 feet or
10 times the building height, whichever is
greater.

All cases where Exposure B or D does not

apply.

Surface Roughness D prevails in the

upwind direction for at least 5,000 feet or
10 times the building height, whichever is
greater. Exposure D extends inland from
the shoreline a distance of 660 feet or 10
times the building height, whichever is
greater.

shown in Table 2. Exposure A (centers of large cities)

was deleted.
The different load cases for Method 2 (the analytical
procedure for MWFRS of low-rise buildings) were
clearly delineated, new pressure coefficients for the
determination of wind loads on domed-roof buildings
were provided and provisions for calculating wind
loads on parapets were added. The design load cases for
December 2006 Building Safety Journal

47

Wind Provisions (continued)

the MWFRS of buildings designed by the general analytical
procedure (as distinct from the low-rise analytical procedure) were updated as well; consideration of wind-induced
torsion was required for all buildings, not just those having
a mean roof height exceeding 60 feet.
Finally, a low suction coefficient of 0.18 was added to the
table of roof pressure coefficients for the design of the
MWFRS under the general analytical procedure for windward roofs in all cases where only a high suction coefficient
was provided earlier. The intent of the new low suction
coefficient was to require the roof to be designed for a null
or slightly positive (inward acting) pressure, depending
upon whether the building is enclosed or partially enclosed,
respectively.

ASCE 7-05
Several changes were made in ASCE 7-05 to the set of conditions that must be met by a building for its MWFRS to be
qualified to be designed using Method 1. One was that the
restriction that a building not be subjected to topographic
effects was omitted, with topographic effects accounted for
by including a topographic effect factor in the calculation of
design wind pressure. The conditions that must be met for
building components and claddings to be designed using
Method 1 were not changed except for the lifting of the
restriction concerning topographic effects.
Under this latest edition of the standard, simplified design
wind pressures and net design wind pressures can be calculated for basic wind speeds of 105, 125 and 145 miles per
hour. A minimum criterion is specified for estimation of
basic wind speeds from regional wind data in special wind
regions, explicitly indicating that the estimated speeds can
be lower than those given in ASCE 7-05, Figure 6-1.
While ASCE 7-02 required Exposure D to extend inland
from the shoreline for a distance of 660 feet or 10 times the
height of a building, whichever was greater, ASCE 7-05
requires Exposure D to extend into downwind areas of
Surface Roughness B or C for a distance of 600 feet or 20
times the height of a building, whichever is greater. In addition, the multiplier of building height by which a certain
terrain category has to extend in the upwind and downwind
directions of a building for qualification of any Exposure
Category has changed from 10 to 20 and other controlling
distances are rounded off to the nearest 100 feet.
A definition of eve height is now provided. Footnote 8 of
Figure 6-10 (Low-Rise Analytical Procedure)which concerns delineation of the boundary between windward zone
pressures and leeward zone pressureshas been clarified.
Glazing in wind-borne debris regions that receives positive
external pressure can no longer be treated as an opening for
design purposes rather than making the glazing in the lower
60 feet of a buildings height impact-resistant or protected.

Other additions include design wind loads on open buildings with pitched or troughed roofs and provisions for
rooftop structures and equipment when roof height is less
than 60 feet.
Additional changes in ASCE 7-05 include revision of the
values of the Combined Net Pressure Coefficient from +1.8
and -1.1 to +1.5 and -1.0 for windward and leeward parapets, respectively; clarification of the application of the provisions for low-slope roofs; and an update of the design
wind loads on free-standing walls and solid signs. Design
wind loads on open buildings with monoslope roofs have
also been revised, and wind-borne debris requirements have
been clarified as being applicable to Method 3 (with the
requirements being the same as those for Method 2).

U.S. Model Codes

The building codes of most jurisdictions within the U.S.
used to be, and in some cases still are, based on one of three
legacy model building codes: the National Building Code
(NBC) published by the Building Officials and Code
Administrators International, the Standard Building Code
(SBC) published by the Southern Building Code Congress
International (SBCCI), and the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) published by the International Conference of Building Officials.
These codes, where still in effect, are in the process of
being replaced by the IBC, first published by the International Code Council in 2000 as part of the consolidation of
the former model code groups.

The NBC
ANSI A58.1-1972 was adopted by reference in the 1978
edition of the NBC and retained in the 1981 and 1984 editions. ANSI A58.1-1982 was adopted in the 1987 edition
and retained in the 1990 edition. ASCE 7-88 was adopted in
the 1993 edition of the NBC and retained in the 1996 and
1999 editions.

The SBC
ANSI A58.1-1972 was adopted by reference in the 1977
revision to the 1976 edition of the SBC, with the adopting
language subsequently appearing in the 1982 edition. Wind
design using ANSI A58.1-1972 was permitted only for oneand two-story structures provided the basic wind pressures
from SBC Table 1205.1 were used. Section 1206 of the
1982 SBC also adopted the MBMA Metal Building Systems
Manual as an alternate standard for the design of buildings
with flat, single-slope and gable-shaped roofs with a mean
roof height of 60 feet or less, provided the eave height did
not exceed the least horizontal dimension of the building.
The 1985 SBC allowed three wind design procedures.
Two of the procedures were given in Section 1205, Wind
Loads, and the third in Section 1206, Alternate Wind Loads
for Low Rise Buildings. The first option allowed under
(continued on page 50)

48 Building Safety Journal December 2006

Wind Provisions (continued)

Section 1205 was the use of the provisions within the
section. The second option allowed the use of the wind
design provisions of ANSI A58.1-1982, provided the basic
wind pressures of SBC Table 1205.1 were used. The tables
values were based on the basic wind speed map depicted in
Figure 1205.1, which corresponded to the 100-year mean
recurrence interval basic wind speed map given in ANSI
A58.1-1972 rather than the 50-year mean recurrence interval map given in ANSI A58.1-1982. The alternate wind
load provisions of Section 1206 were permitted to be used
for the design of buildings with flat, single-slope and
gable-shaped roofs with a mean roof height of 60 feet or
less, provided the eave height did not exceed the least horizontal dimension of the building. Section 1206 contained
a corresponding basic wind speed map taken from ANSI
A58.1-1982.
The 1988 edition of the SBC permitted any building or
structure to be designed using ANSI A58.1-1982. In addition, Section 1205.2 of the code included provisions based
on the MBMA procedures for buildings with flat, singleslope and gable-shaped roofs whose mean roof height was
less than or equal to 60 feet but did not require that the roof
eave height be less than or equal to the least horizontal
dimension of the building. Section 1205.3 applied to buildings exceeding 60 feet in height but not more than 500 feet
in height, provided the roof slope did not exceed 10 degrees
or was not an arched roof. Buildings between 60 and 500
feet in height not meeting these limitations and all buildings over 500 feet in height had to be designed according
to ANSI A58.1-1982. The basic wind speed map given in
Section 1205 was the same as the ANSI A58.1-1982 map.
The provisions of the 1991 edition of the code were
essentially the same except that ASCE 7-88 was referenced
rather than ANSI A58.1-1982. As in the updated standard,
the basic wind speed map given in Section 1205 remained
unchanged from ANSI A58.1-1982.
In the 1994 SBC, ASCE 7-88 was adopted by reference
to apply to all buildings and structures. An exception continued to permit the MBMA procedures, given in Section
1606.2, to be used for buildings with flat, single-slope,
hipped and gable-shaped roofs with mean roof heights not
exceeding 60 feet or the least horizontal dimension of the
building.
The 1997 SBC wind design provisions were essentially
the same as in the 1994 edition apart from updating the referenced standard to ASCE 7-95. However, the basic wind
speed map given in Section 1606.2 remained unchanged
(rather than adopting the ASCE 7-95 basic wind speed map
based on 3-second gust wind speed).
The 1999 SBC provisions remained unchanged from the
1997 edition.

The UBC
Through its 1979 edition, the wind design provisions of the
UBC were based on the predecessor document to ANSI
A58.1-1972: ANSI A58.1-1955.
The wind design provisions in the 1982 edition of the UBC
were based on ANSI A58.1-1972 with a simplified calculation
procedure, but important changes proposed for ANSI A58.11982 were incorporated. Few significant changes were made
in the 1985 and 1988 editions of the code.
The 1991 UBC wind design provisions were based on
ASCE 7-88 with a simplified calculation procedure. Minor
changes were made in the 1994 edition, and none in the
1997 edition.

The IBC
The 2000 edition of the IBC adopted ASCE 7-98 for wind
design, with the exclusion of Method 1. Section 1609.6 provided a simplified design procedure based on the low-rise
analytical procedure of ASCE 7-98 Method 2 and applicable only to simple diaphragm buildings as defined in the
code. For qualifying residential buildings free of topographic effects, the SBCCI deemed-to-comply standard
SSTD 10-99, Standard for Hurricane Resistant Residential
Construction, or American Forest & Paper Association
Wood Frame Construction Manual (WFCM) were also
allowed. The 2000 edition of the code also added an alternative method of providing opening protection in one- and
two-story buildings, included a conversion table between
fastest-mile wind speed and 3-second gust wind speed, and
provided an optional design procedure for rigid tile roof
coverings.
The 2003 edition of the IBC adopted ASCE 7-02 for wind
design. A simplified design procedure for simple diaphragm
buildings was still provided in Section 1609.6, but it was
now very close to ASCE 7-02 Method 1 becauseas previously notedASCE 7-02 employed the simplified design
procedure given in 2000 IBC Section 1609.6 with some
modifications. Qualifying residential buildings free of topographic effects could still be designed using SSTD 10 or
WFCM. The alternative method of providing opening protection in one- and two-story buildings, the conversion table
between fastest-mile wind speed and 3-second gust wind
speed, and the optional design procedure for rigid tile roof
coverings remained essentially unchanged.
The 2006 IBC has adopted ASCE 7-05 for wind design.
Although simplified wind design is no longer in the code,
it is permitted by reference to the ASCE standard and
qualifying residential buildings free of topographic effects
can still be designed using SSTD 10 or WFCM. The alternative method of providing opening protection in one- and
two-story buildings is also retained in a modified form as
well as a revised conversion table between fastest-mile wind
speed and 3-second gust wind speed. The optional design
procedure for rigid tile roof coverings remains unchanged.
(continued on page 52)

50 Building Safety Journal December 2006

December 2006 Building Safety Journal

51

Wind Provisions (continued)

Changes from
ANSI A58.1-1972 to ASCE 7-05
Of all the changes from ANSI A58.1-1972 through ASCE 7-05,
only a few are less conservative from a design perspective.
The first of these is the adoption of the low-rise analytical procedure in ASCE 7-95 as an alternative design approach for the
MWFRS, which can reduce design wind pressures significantly.
While generalizations can be difficult because so many variables
influence the determination of design wind pressures for a specific building, use of the alternate procedure can result in the total
wind load being approximately 30- to 35-percent less than would
be calculated using the primary procedure. In areas where the
basic wind speed is low, the relative lack of conservatism of the
low-rise procedure is mitigated somewhat by the requirement that
all MWFRS be designed for a minimum pressure of 10 pounds
per square foot applied to the area of the building projected onto
a vertical plane. It could be argued, however, that this provision
is often overlooked by practitioners and is not sufficiently
enforced by local jurisdictions.
It is also worth noting that the 3-second gust speed map of
ASCE 7-95 was prepared from data accumulated by the National
Weather Service rather than being converted from the ASCE 7-93
fastest-mile wind speed map. While in most areas the 70 mileper-hour fastest-mile wind speed, for example, became a 3second gust speed of 85 or 90 miles per hour, in certain areas such
as Denver, Colorado, it remained virtually unchanged. In practice, this meant that design wind pressures in those areas went
down when ASCE 7-95 was adopted, even while using strength
design, with the rounded-up load factor of 1.6 incorporated.
Another considerable change was the introduction of the directionality factor, Kd, in ASCE 7-98. This led to a rounding-up of
the wind load factor from 1.53 to 1.60 in strength design and
decreased the design wind forces in Allowable Stress Design,
which is widely used for structures made of materials other than
concrete.
The final change in the direction of reduced conservatism was
the redrawing of the basic wind speed map in ASCE 7-98, which
decreased the basic wind speeds in inland Florida. It may be
argued, however, that when U.S. National Weather Service data
indicates that a change is warranted, the ASCE 7 Committee has
little grounds for dispute.
By and large, the changes from ANSI A58.1-1972 through
ASCE 7-05 have not been consistently in the direction of lower
or higher design wind pressures. If there is a demonstrable trend,
it is toward more complexity in wind design.
S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., is President of S.K. Ghosh Associates, Inc.,
which provides code-related seismic and specialized structural
consulting services to clients in the U.S. and abroad, and
Adjunct Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of
Illinois at Chicago.
52 Building Safety Journal December 2006

Figure 1. Plan of example concrete building.

Figure 2. Elevation of example concrete building.

Dr. Ghosh served for many years as Director of

Engineering Services, Codes and Standards for the
Portland Cement Association and has written extensively on wind and seismic engineering issues.
Much gratitude is expressed to Jim Messersmith and
Steve Skalko of the Portland Cement Association and
Susan Dowty of S.K. Ghosh Associates Inc. for their
contributions.

Table 3. Comparison of computed wind forces for example building.

FLOOR LEVEL
R
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2

WIND FORCES (plf)

1997 UBC
2006 IBC
235
214
314
286
310
284
306
281
302
278
298
275
293
272
290
269
285
265
282
262
277
258
272
254
267
249
261
244
253
239
247
233
239
226
229
218
218
208
243
233

2006 IBC/1997 UBC

0.91
0.91
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.96

1997 UBC/2006 IBC Design Comparison

Given a concrete building in suburban Los Angeles,
Californiawhich has a 3-second gust wind speed of 85
miles per hourin exposure Category B and a plan and
elevation as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, respectively, we
may calculate design wind forces using both ASCE 7-05
Method 2, which has been adopted by the 2006 IBC, and
the wind design procedure of the 1997 UBC, which is a
simplified version of that given in ASCE 7-88 developed
as a joint effort by the Structural Engineers Association of
California (SEAOC) and the Structural Engineers Association of Washington (SEAW).
As illustrated in Table 3, although the calculations
involved in the two cases were not comparable, with
the ASCE 7-05 design being considerably more
com-plex (even with the different load cases given in
Figure 6-9 of ASCE 7-05, other than Load Case 1, not
con-sidered), the UBC procedure produces slightly
conservative results. The primary reason for the higher
complexity is that the simplifications made by
SEAOC/SEAW to the provisions of ASCE 7-88 are not
allowed using ASCE 7-05 Method 2.
Also, as outlined in the main article, many complexities have been added to the wind design provisions of
ASCE 7 between the 1988 and 2005 editions. For
example, because the building under consideration is
flexible, ASCE 7-05 requires that the gust effect factor

be calculatedinvolving a large number of complex

equations that took an experienced engineer over 90
minutes to complete. Ironically, the factor turned out to
be 0.87, compared with the 0.85 value prescribed for
rigid buildings.
While generalization is not reasonable based on just
one example, this demonstrates the potential benefit
of including a simplified design procedure in the IBC,
with appropriate restrictions.The 1997 UBC design procedure cannot be used as-is because it is based on
fastest-mile wind speed, which is no longer recorded
by the National Weather Service, and other aspects of
the procedure should also be updated to reflect the
latest research and technology.
A simplification of the analytical procedures of ASCE
7-98 and 7-02 has been under development by SEAW
for some time and was recently published by the
Applied Technology Council as SEAW RSM-03, SEAWs
Handbook of a Rapid-Solutions Methodology for Wind
Design, along with SEAW/ATC-60, Commentary on
Wind Code Provisions. This procedure does not yet
appear to be ready for codification and the most
effective way of finalizing the update would be
through collaboration among state structural engineers associations.
December 2006 Building Safety Journal

53