RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

LOADS
Review and Roadmap for
Future Progress

PREPARED BY
Special Project Committee on Residential Building Loads of the
Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of ASCE

WITH SUPPORT PROVIDED BY

National Association of Home Builders
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

EDITED BY
Jay H. Crandell, P.E.
Thomas M. Kenney, P.E.
David V. Rosowsky, Ph.D., P.E.

-1SCE
Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Residential building loads : review and roadmap for future progress / prepared by Special
Project Committee on Residential Building Loads of the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI)
of ASCE with support provided by National Association of Home Builders, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7844-0852-1
1. House construction. 2. Loads (Mechanics) 3. Architecture, Domestic, I. Structural
Engineering Institute, Special Project Committee on Residential Building Loads.

TH4812.R47 2006
728-dc22 2006012208

American Society of Civil Engineers

1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia 20191

www.pubs.asce.org

Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made
herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process or
service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE,
The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are
they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any
other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express
or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information,
apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefore.
This information should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its
suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing this information assumes all
liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or
patents,

ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.

Photocopies and reprints.

You can obtain instant permission to photocopy ASCE publications by using ASCE's online
permission service (www.pubs.asce.org/authors/RightslinkWelcomePage.htm). Requests for
100 copies or more should be submitted to the Reprints Department, Publications Division,
ASCE (address above); email: [email protected], A reprint order form can be found at
www.pubs.asce.org/authors/reprints.html.

Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

All Rights Reserved.
ISBN 0-7844-0852-1
Manufactured in the United States of America.

15 14 13 12 11 10090807 2345
 Contents
Acknowledgments v
Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Scope 2
Approach 3
Background. 3

Existing Situation 7
Review and Roadmapping Topics 8
Topic #1 Actual vs. Nominal Dead Loads 9
Topic #2 Minimum Partition Wall Weight for Seismic Load Analysis 10
Topic #3 Use of Miscellaneous Roof Live Load 11
Topic #4 Attic Live Loads 12
Topic #5 Multi-story Floor Live Load Coincidence 14
Topic #6 Floor Live Load Area Reduction for Residential Buildings 15
Topic #7 Wind Shielding 15
Topic #8 Characterization of Suburban and Wooded Wind Exposure 19
Topic #9 Wind-borne Debris 21
Topic #10 Air-permeable Cladding Wind Loads 24
Topic #11 Unbalanced and Drift Snow Loads 26
Topic #12 Lateral Soil Load on Residential Foundations 27
Topic #13 Simplification of Design Loads 28
Topic #14 Performance Obj ectives and Target Reliability for Housing Design 29
Conclusions and Recommendations 31
References 33
Appendix A: Structural Design Data [Excerpted From Appendix A of Minimum Property
Standards (FHA, 1958)] 38
Appendix B: Simplified ASCE 7-02 Wind Loads For Typical Low-Rise
Buildings January 31,2004 41

Index 49

iii
This page intentionally left blank
 Acknowledgments
Special appreciation is extended to the Structural Engineering Institute of the
American Society of Civil Engineers for the support provided in sponsoring this
special project on residential building loads, hi addition, this project would not have
been possible without the support provided by the National Association of Home
Builders and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The special
project committee members were as follows:
• Dr. David Rosowsky, Chair, Oregon State University
• Patrick Bridges, Vice Chair, Oregon Building Industry Association
• Jay Crandell, Secretary, Consultant
• Joe Knarich, National Association of Home Builders
• Dr. Bruce Ellingwood, Georgia Institute of Technology
• Dr. Timothy Reinhold, Clemson University
• Brad Douglas, American Forest and Paper Association
• Jeff Sciandone, Institute for Business and Home Safety
• William Freeborne, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(retired)
• Jim Rossberg, Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE)
The committee also wishes to express its gratitude to the following individuals and
several others who contributed to this effort with their comments and assistance.
• Richard Zimmerman and Kirk Grandahl, Wood Truss Council of America
Charlie Goehring and Kelly Gutting, Truss Plate Institute
• Mark Nunn, Manufactured Housing Institute
• Dr. Michael J. O'Rourke, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
• Thomas Kenney, Jay Jones, and Vladimir Kochkin, NAHB Research Center, Inc.

V
This page intentionally left blank
INTRODUCTION

The topic of structural design loads for buildings has experienced continued interest
and numerous technical advancements over the past 80 years. The process of
establishing and maintaining uniformity in building loads began in 1924 as a building
code committee report by the U.S. Department of Commerce. However, the most
significant technical achievements have occurred over the past 20 to 30 years. The
collective knowledge on this topic consists of design and construction experience,
judgment, data on actual loading or hazard characteristics, and laboratory testing or
analytical methods of simulating building loads. Probabilistic methods now provide a
general framework with which to communicate, evaluate, and establish design loads
for an acceptable level of building performance or reliability in coordination with
various material design specifications. However, many design load criteria are still
deterministically-based and provide opportunities for further expansion of
probabilistic or performance-based methods of design.
In the United States, the body of applied research on structural loads is now largely
represented in Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE,
2002), known simply as ASCE 7. This consensus-based engineering standard has
become the preeminent source for building structural design loads in the United
States. It also serves as a focal point for the application of new information on
structural loads, as well as a repository for significant technical contributions that
have occurred over time. As such, the ASCE 7 standard relies on a large number of
technical resources and judgments to provide rules for determining loads for a wide
variety of structural design applications.
In recent years, the application of structural loads for residential building design has
seen increased interest for a number of reasons. Technical reasons relate to real or
perceived needs for specialized research on residential building loads and
applications of this research. In addition, changing house styles, materials, and
regulations point toward an increased demand for specialized design of homes,
particularly in high natural hazard areas of the United States. Functional reasons
relate to simplicity, clarity, and specificity of loading requirements for a narrow scope
of building design applications and practices, such as dwellings, which represent a
large proportion of building activity.

PURPOSE

In response to the above concern, this document is intended to serve as both a

technical resource and a roadmap for coordination of future research and
implementation efforts. As a technical resource, this report identifies and reviews
existing knowledge on a total of 14 topics related to design loads for residential
building applications. As a roadmap, this document provides strategic
recommendations to address technical and functional needs. The recommendations
provided are based primarily on existing knowledge available to and the experience

1
2 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

of the special project committee. Potential economic impacts to design, construction,

and housing affordability are not specifically addressed. Technical references are
provided at the end of this document.
While all topics were researched, reviewed, and discussed by the special project
committee, not all findings reported herein received unanimous support. The intent of
this work was to identify needs and concerns related to residential building loads as a
road mapping exercise. Due to the subjective nature of this type of activity, differing
opinions were anticipated. However, one of the main goals of this work was to review
and compile existing knowledge pertaining to residential building loads such that the
consideration of research and implementation needs may guided by a careful and
consistent understanding of existing knowledge associated with each need or topic
identified by the committee. While significant progress has been made toward this
goal, more work is needed and this realization is reflected in many of the
recommendations presented in this document. In some cases, there is a need for
additional literature review and research. These types of recommendations are
directed to those in the business of directing, sponsoring, and conducting research. In
other cases, the need may be more appropriately categorized as implementation (e.g.,
interpretation and application of existing knowledge). Recommendations in the latter
case are strategically directed toward appropriate consensus standards committees,
such as ASCE 7, as the final decision-making entity.

SCOPE

The types of structures considered within this effort are one- and two-family
dwellings and manufactured housing units (i.e., HUD-code dwellings); however,
many of the design load topics herein are not necessarily limited to this scope of
buildings. As a group, these buildings comprise a special class of low-rise
construction because they are typically less than three stories in height and are
usually constructed using conventional light-frame materials and methods (including
dimension lumber, masonry, concrete, engineered wood components, and steel
components). Building configurations are generally rectangular in plan and use steep-
sloped roof systems (e.g., gable roof). By definition, HUD-code homes are further
limited to one story in height although two-story HUD-code homes may be permitted
through an alternative construction process. Collectively, these types of buildings
dominate the residential construction market and the overall population of buildings
in the United States.
While this paper focuses on the building load side of the design equation, it is not
intended to diminish the equally important need to seek specialized advancement in
understanding the structural system behavior (response to loads) of typical residential
buildings (Crandell and Kochkin, 2003; HUD, 2000). This need is perhaps of greater
significance and even more challenging to address, but is beyond the scope of this
document. However, it is insightful to recognize all potential sources of uncertainty
and bias in the overall design process which strives to integrate knowledge regarding
loads and resistance in a practical manner. For example, in Queensland, Australia,
wall bracing requirements in building regulations were relaxed by approximately 50
percent after full-scale tests indicated that "non-structural" elements provided
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 3

sufficient bracing (St. Pierre, et al., 2003). Because of the unpredictable nature of
system effects, appropriate solutions to account for these effects are difficult to
generalize and usually require the exercise of judgment based on relevant experience
or data. Thus, system effects pose technical challenges as well as political challenges
in terms of fostering acceptance of proposed solutions among those who may have
differing experiences, knowledge, and motives.
The topic of earthquake loads, except as affected by Topic #2, Minimum Partition
Wall Weight for Seismic Load Analysis, is not addressed in this document. It was
expressed by some members of the special project committee that the topic of
earthquake loads on residential buildings should be addressed within other existing
programs such as the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (BSSC, 2000).
Furthermore, earthquake loads and structural response (resistance) are inextricably
linked in such a way that loads cannot be addressed separately from structural
behavior and physical properties (e.g., mass). Thus, this topic inherently includes
issues that are considered to be beyond the scope of this special project activity on
residential building loads.

APPROACH

The approach used in this special project activity was as follows:

1. Convene a select group of experts to participate on the special project committee.
2. Identify and discuss existing technical knowledge on select residential building
load topics.
3. Consider design loads for residential buildings as contained in existing standards
and building codes.
4. Formulate research and implementation recommendations aimed at improving the
characterization and application of residential building loads.
Two special project committee meetings were held over the course of about two years
from 2002 to 2003. The first meeting served to identify topics to investigate. The
second meeting and subsequent communications focused on reviewing and drafting
this document.

BACKGROUND
Structural load provisions specifically intended for design of one- and two-family
dwellings have been developed and implemented in the past. One early attempt is
found in a government housing construction guide intended to bring uniformity to
construction practices for homes (HEW, 1931). Structural loads as well as wood
material design guidance were included. Guidance on building loads, however,
focused primarily on recommended gravity load design values based at least in part
on earlier determinations by the Building Code Committee of the U.S. Department of
Commerce in 1923. Some of the gravity load criteria found in this 1931 publication
are excerpted as follows:
4 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

Table 1 - Recommended live loads and dead weight per square foot
of construction such as flooring, roofing, plaster, and the like

Live load, all floors used for living purposes 40 psf

Live load for attic (used for light storage only) 20 psf

Dead weight (called dead load) for average double floor and joists, but
without plaster 10 psf

Dead weight of plaster ceiling, including joists on light unfloored

attics 10 psf

Roof of light construction, including both live and dead loads 20 psf

Roof of medium construction with light slate or asbestos roofing,

including both live and dead loads 30 psf

Roof of heavy construction with heavy slate or tile roofing, including

both live and dead loads 40 psf

Although a live load of 40 pounds per square foot should be used in selecting all floor
joists, such a load will not occur over a large floor area at the same time. The larger
the area, the less chance there is of its being heavily loaded all over. In fact, the
Building Code Committee of the U.S. Department of Commerce, in 1923, after
careful investigation, recommended that, in computing the load on girders carrying
floors more than 200 square feet in area, a live load of 30 pounds per square foot is
used.
In the same publication, lateral bracing for wind loading was addressed subjectively
as follows:
"Bracing is any means taken to stiffen a building against a tendency to
lean or collapse as the result of high winds or the effects of time. It is
of prime importance in sections of the country subject to wind
storms."
No clear definition of lateral wind loads was given nor was a magnitude specified.
And, there was no recognition of wind uplift or earthquake lateral loads. Snow loads
were grouped with live loads and dead loads were provided as nominal design values.
In 1948, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS, now known as the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST)) published Building Materials and Structures
Report 109 entitled Strength of Houses: Application of Engineering Principles to
Structural Design (NBS, 1948). The report embodied the first comprehensive attempt
to evaluate the actual structural performance of various housing constructions,
develop suitable design load criteria, and apply engineering principles to the design
of one- and two-family dwellings. Over 100 different constaiction assemblies
reflective of practices at that time were weighed for dead load and tested for
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 5

transverse, compression, and racking load effects. The proposed methodology to

determine design loads included a wind velocity pressure map, a snow load map, and
a review of existing building load practices and data. The NBS Report 109 also
provided the rationale behind various recommended design loads. For example, the
following excerpt explains the origination of the floor live load value still used in the
design of homes today:
"After careful study, several competent architects and builders stated
that for residential occupancy the furniture loads seldom exceed 15 psf
uniformly distributed, but that the load caused by a crowd of people
averaged 40 psf and might occur in any room at any time. It is evident,
therefore, that the floor of a house should be designed for a uniformly
distributed load of 40 psf."
Furthermore, the report also relies on prior sources as shown below:
"A load of 20 psf on an attic floor used for light storage only is
recommended in Light Frame House Construction."
In turn, the values referenced in Light Frame House Construction (HEW, 1931)
appear to be based on the determinations made in 1923 by the Building Code
Committee of the U.S. Department of Commerce in its effort to establish uniformity
of design loads.
By 1958, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA, now known as the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD) had formulated the first
comprehensive building code for one- and two-family dwelling construction known
as the Minimum Property Standards or MPS (FHA, 1958). This document was
comprehensive in all respects and was developed and formatted to include
performance objective statements and associated construction criteria. It was based
on Building Code Requirements for New Dwelling Construction (NBS, 1946)
produced by the National Housing Agency in consultation with the National Bureau
of Standards. The 1958 MPS document included an appendix entitled "Structural
Design Data" which provided the basis for engineering of individual homes or
portions of homes not meeting the limitations of prescriptive requirements. It also
served as a performance basis for evaluating alternative constructions. In addition, the
structural load requirements were simplified to meet the intended application and
scope of the MPS (see Appendix A to this document). For conditions outside of the
scope of the "Structural Design Data" appendix, users were referred to American
Standards Association (ASA, now known as the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI)) standard A58.1 "Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other
Structures" (a precursor of the ASCE 7 standard). The load criteria in the MPS appear
to have been based on simplifications of or extractions from the A58.1 standard
which probably extends to judgments made previously, dating as far back to the 1923
Building Codes Committee of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
By the 1970's, several changes had taken place in the regulation of residential
building construction and design. First, the effort to maintain and periodically update
the HUD Minimum Property Standards was terminated. It was replaced by a
residential building code developed as a joint effort of existing building official
6 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

organizations operating as the Council of American Building Officials (CABO).

However, the CABO code was never fully adopted by all states and local
jurisdictions. For example, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) in the western states
maintained its own provisions for conventional wood frame construction which
addressed one- and two-family dwellings as well as other low-rise building types.
While updated several times, these UBC provisions are still in use today (ICBO,
1997). More importantly, the simplified engineering design and performance criteria
for one- and two-family dwellings were not carried forward from the Minimum
Property Standards era. Eventually, the CABO code and the major model building
codes in the United States were subject to yet another major change in organization
which is addressed in the next section.
In the 1970's, the manufactured housing industry also experienced a major change in
regulatory process and requirements. By 1974, 24 CFR Part 3280 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) was created to provide for the design and construction of
manufactured housing units under the authority of the National Manufactured
Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. As such, it addresses load
criteria, test criteria, and other matters related to the production and installation of
manufactured housing units. For wind loads, the current regulation specifically
references the 1988 edition of the ASCE 7 standard. Other loads are specified directly
in 24 CFR Part 3280. More recently, the NFPA 501 standard has been developed to
serve as a resource for updating the provisions of 24 CFR Part 3280 (NFPA, 2000).
Meanwhile, the development of building design load regulations in the United States
was progressing. Some key benchmarks are summarized as follows:
1924 - Building Code Committee of U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) publishes
a report to establish uniform design loads for the United States.
1945 - American Standards Association (ASA) A58.1 standard is published with the
title Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads. The A58.1 standard
broadened the scope of the 1924 DOC report to include weights of materials and
equipment, occupants, and moveable contents; wind pressures; weight of snow; and
earthquake forces.
1955 - A58.1 standard updated.
1972 - A58.1 standard was updated a second time and sections on wind and snow
loads were expanded based on rapid research advancements providing a statistical
basis for fundamental wind and snow load variables.
1982 - A58.1 standard was further expanded to include performance requirements for
general structural integrity and probability-based load combinations for strength
design.
In addition, several other changes were made:
• Some live loads were revised and a new live-load reduction procedure based on
load survey data and probabilistic live load modeling was included.
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 7

• The wind map was revised based on analysis of extreme fastest-mile winds and
pressure coefficients were updated based on wind tunnel studies and actual wind
pressure measurements on buildings.
• Snow loads were improved based on a greatly expanded database of ground
snow loads and recently completed measurements of snow accumulation on
roofs (in addition, thermal effects were numerically considered for the first time).
• Earthquake loads were updated to account for an Applied Technology Council
effort to develop comprehensive seismic regulations for buildings, including a
new seismic risk map, while retaining features of the 1979 edition of the
Uniform Building Code.
1988 to present - The first edition of the ASCE 7 standard, Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and Other Structures, replaced the A58.1 standard. Subsequent editions
of ASCE 7 were published in 1993, 1995, 1998, and 2002. Revisions for a 2005
edition were in progress at the time of this writing. The 1993 provisions primarily
addressed an update to earthquake provisions based on the National Earthquake
Hazard Reduction Program's recommended provisions for seismic regulations.
Subsequent editions have introduced numerous incremental advancements and
expansions of load requirements. For example, flood and atmospheric ice loads have
been recently added.
The above sequence of technical improvements to the ASCE 7 standard has not been
without consequence. For example, many users of ASCE 7 and members of the
committee have become concerned with its complexity and length. The 1982 edition
of ANSI A58.1 was 45 pages in length (not including commentary). The 2002 edition
of ASCE 7 is now 215 pages in length (not including commentary). While there are
many good reasons for the increased length of ASCE 7 (e.g., expansion of scope,
expansion of knowledge, etc.), the volume of information and its complexity may
interfere with efficient and accurate (or adequate) use of its provisions, many of
which may not apply to specific or common applications. Therefore, simplicity is a
topic that is addressed later in this document in regard to residential design
applications (see Topic #13). Educational efforts and simplicity are the two "tools"
by which users can be influenced to properly and consistently apply the content of
ASCE 7. Furthermore, specific needs may vary depending upon user groups and the
nature and extent of their design applications.

EXISTING SITUATION

By the year 2000, the three major model building code organizations in the United
States had joined together and developed a single national model building code, the
International Building Code (ICC, 2000). As a part of this effort, a separate
residential building code was also continued. This new code, the International
Residential Code (IRC), was derived primarily from the previous CABO and UBC
codes (ICC, 2000). In addition, many changes to engineering and construction criteria
were introduced during the drafting and subsequent code development process as a
result of concerns with earthquake and wind resistant construction of housing.
8 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

Structural performance concerns with residential construction, as in the past, were

also attended by a strong desire to rationalize all conventional construction provisions
using engineering principles as represented in standardized engineering criteria for
loads and resistance. Indeed, some conventional construction practices have long
been rationalized by using engineering principles (e.g., header span tables, joist span
tables, etc.). In other cases, standard engineering methods used in the development of
newer IRC provisions to improve conventional construction practices may not
accurately model system performance effects in conventional residential construction
(HUD, 2000; Crandell and Kochkin, 2003). For example, the lateral resistance of
conventional residential construction has been found to be substantially stronger than
predictions made by code-compliant engineering calculation in a number of whole
building tests (HUD, 2000; HUD, 2001).
Many of the above issues in the engineering of conventional residential construction
have been recently reviewed in detail and many of the issues are actually
continuations of technical challenges that have been known for more than a half
century (Crandell and Kochkin, 2003; NBS, 1948). Because of these unanswered
technical challenges and differing opinions on the application of engineering
principles to housing design, varying engineering design decisions with regard to
loads and resistance for residential buildings continue to be made in professional
practice and are implicit in the development of prescriptive construction requirements
for conventional residential construction in the IRC. This situation points to the need
for continuing research as well as uniformity, clarity, and simplicity in unique design
procedures for housing.
As mentioned in the Background section, a straight-forward approach to housing
design was incorporated as a part of the Minimum Property Standards promulgated
by HUD in the 1950's and 1960's (see Appendix A), and the design load provisions
were presented in about two pages of text and tables. While outdated, it serves as a
useful model for recognizing unique design load and resistance criteria in a simplified
design approach for housing. In recent years, an attempt has been made to mimic and
modernize this simplified approach for the design of homes while including some
unique technical considerations based on current knowledge. The resulting document,
Structural Design Loads for One- and Two-Family Dwellings, is based on a
simplification of the ASCE 7 standard and provides comprehensive design load
criteria in about 29 pages of text, figures, tables, and commentary (HUDa, 2001).
Based in part on that document, an example of a simplified wind load provision based
on the ASCE 7 standard is shown in Appendix B. The intent, as with the MPS load
provisions, is to provide adequate loads for the design of one- and two-family
dwellings with minimal engineering effort and/or complexity. This objective is
particularly important since the high cost of design relative to the value of an
individual home can detract from the benefits of using individually engineered house
plans (St. Pierre et al, 2003; Crandell and Kochkin, 2003).

REVIEW AND ROADMAPPING TOPICS

In this section of the report, various load topics identified by the special project
committee are presented. For each topic, a standard format is used to describe the
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 9

topic, summarize existing knowledge, discuss implementation barriers and progress,

and make recommendations toward future research and implementation. The order of
presentation is not intended to reflect priority or level of significance.

Topic #1 Actual vs. Nominal Dead Loads

Description: Dead loads used for residential building design are commonly based on
prescribed nominal dead loads for generic floor, roof and wall assemblies.
Engineering design criteria for dead loads generally have required that an estimated
actual dead load (including structural and non-structural component weights) be used
in design; the dead load factor for strength design is based on this presumption.
Discrepancies between actual estimated and prescribed nominal dead loads can result
in unfavorable impacts on design, particularly for counteracting load combinations
(e.g., uplift connection requirements may be under-designed if dead load is over-
estimated). Furthermore, generic nominal dead loads for various residential building
assemblies (e.g., ASCE 7 commentary data) appear outdated relative to modern
residential construction practice and are in need of updating and possible expansion.
Existing Knowledge: Several references explain the historic treatment of and existing
knowledge on the topic of dead loads for residential construction (HEW, 1931; NBS,
1948; FHA, 1958; HUDb, 2001; ASCE, 2002). Nominal dead loads are necessary for
development of prescriptive construction provisions and, therefore, become a scope
limit on the use of such provisions (ICC, 2000; AF&PA, 2001). A current listing of
nominal or generic assembly dead loads is found in the commentary to the ASCE 7
standard and many date back to the 1945 edition of ASA A58.1. The provisions of
ASCE 7 require that estimated actual dead loads be used for design as has been
common to most design load standards (FHA, 1958; ASA, 1945; ANSI, 1982; 24
CFR 3280, 1999; NFPA 501, 2001; ASCE 7, 2002). Therefore, the use of nominal or
generic building assembly dead loads should reflect this intent. The BMS 109 report
provides the most comprehensive testing of weights of construction assemblies for
residential construction (NBS, 1948). However, many of these assemblies are
outdated while others still appear to be relevant. Nominal dead loads for a few
modern conventional residential construction assemblies have been promulgated
(AF&PA, 2001; HUDa, 2001). For determination of actual dead loads, material
densities are available from a variety of sources, one of which is the commentary of
ASCE 7.
Implementation Progress and Barriers: The treatment of dead loads as actual or
nominal values in residential design practice varies to an unknown degree. Existing
published information on nominal or assembly dead weights may be outdated and
based on information dating back as far as 1945. However, there are few barriers
toward improving knowledge on dead loads whether they are considered as nominal
or estimated actual values in design.
Recommendations:
• Develop and submit a proposal that updates nominal assembly dead load
information found in the commentary of ASCE 7.
10 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

• Assembly weights should address modern construction materials and typical

assemblies including estimates of the mean and variation (or provide a min-max
range) for each assembly type. Sources of variability to consider may include
dimensional tolerances in manufacturing and installation and variance in material
density (e.g., wood species and moisture content).
• Typical dead weights of modern fenestration and door assemblies also should be
addressed (about 15 percent of wall surface area on average is used for windows
and doors in typical residential construction).
• Dead load of typical roof assemblies should include compensation for the effect
of roof slope (e.g., the TPI1-02 standard for wood truss design includes such an
approach for estimation of roof system dead loads).
• The possible use of different load factors on dead load when determined using
actual weights of materials and when nominal values are used needs additional
investigation to maintain consistent levels of reliability for the two approaches.
• Variation in dead load during the life of the building, due to unregulated but
otherwise normal remodeling or maintenance activities, should also be
considered.

Topic #2 Minimum Partition Wall Weight for Seismic Load Analysis

Description: Seismic design provisions have for some time required a minimum
partition wall weight of 10 psf (based on floor area) to be included in the
determination of the weight of the building for seismic lateral load analysis (ASCE,
2002). Based on a limited study of residential floor plans and use of a slightly
conservative 6 psf partition wall dead load (based on wall area) (HUDb, 2001), it has
been determined that typical partition wall dead loads on the basis of floor areas
range from about 2 to 4 psf (upper stories are generally divided into smaller areas and
have the higher range of partition loads). Using the nominal 10 psf floor area load to
cover partition loads in seismic design of typical homes can result in conservative
lateral loads for the design of shear walls and diaphragms (e.g., a 25 percent increase
in base shear relative to the use of actual dead load values for partitions). If
inadvertently applied to analysis of counteracting dead and wind uplift loads, use of a
10 psf minimum partition load is unconservative.
Existing Knowledge: Typical partition wall dead loads in one- and two-family
dwellings have been briefly addressed in only one document considered by the
special project committee (HUDb, 2001). In residential construction, it is also widely
known that interior partition walls, when present, contribute significantly to lateral
resistance of homes; however, engineering design criteria generally require that the
mass of these walls, and not any resistance, be considered in seismic design (HUD,
2000; HUD, 2001). Therefore, it is important that interior partition wall dead loads
and lateral resistance effects be treated together in terms of seismic design of homes.
Implementation Progress and Barriers: No known attempt has been made to adjust
the minimum partition wall weight value of 10 psf (based on floor area) for analysis
of seismic loads on dwellings and there are no significant technical barriers to
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 11

consideration of such an adjustment. However, given that seismic load considerations

are generally handled as a part of the NEHRP provisions (BSSC, 2000) and the
ASCE 7 standard, a coordinated effort may be required.
Recommendations:
• A variety of typical residential floor plans should be studied to characterize
interior partition wall loads as a function of floor area by story level.
Information on partition wall loads is already found in one resource based on a
limited survey of modern residential building plans (HUDb, 2001).
• Based on the above substantiation, formulate and submit a proposal to address an
appropriate minimum partition wall load to use in the analysis of seismic lateral
load on residential buildings. The proposal should be submitted to the
appropriate committees as described in the previous section.
• Variation in partition wall dead load (as a function of floor area) during the life
of a structure, due to normal remodeling or maintenance activities, should also be
considered. However, for light-frame residential buildings, the inclusion of
additional partition walls in a given story level tends to increase resistance in
greater proportion than increases in inertial loads. Conversely, removing partition
walls may decrease building mass, but can cause a disproportionately larger
reduction in lateral resistance. Therefore, treatment of variation in partition wall
dead load needs to be coordinated with practices used for calculating lateral
resistance.

Topic #3 Use of Miscellaneous Roof Live Load

Description: The miscellaneous roof live load, Lr, is intended to account for
maintenance and repair activities. Based on the experience of some members of the
special project committee, this load is sometimes miss-applied in load combinations
such as D+W+ (Lr or S). In addition, the combination of Lr with other live loads
(floor and attic) may lead to unintended combinations of design loads.
Existing Knowledge: A nominal roof live load of 20 psf appears to date back to the
1955 edition of the ASA A58.1 standard and it was used in the 1958 edition of the
Minimum Property Standards (MPS) where a minimum roof live load of 20 psf was
required for a roof pitch of 3:12 or less and 15 psf for a roof pitch of greater than
3:12; roofs used as decks were required to use a 40 psf live load (FHA, 1958). See
Appendix A.
In ASCE 7-02 the following description of roof live loads is given:
SECTION 4.1 DEFINITIONS
...Live loads on a roof are those produced (I) during maintenance by
workers, equipment, and materials, and (2) during the life of the
structure by movable objects such as planters and by people.
In Section 4.9 of ASCE 7-02, roof live loads are determined by equations that adjust
from a nominal value of 20 psf (associated with a 200 ft2 tributary area on a flat roof)
to a value no less than 12 psf for sloped roofs and for tributary areas in excess of
12 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

200 ft2. These adjustments are consistent with earlier editions of the standard and the
area adjustments are similar to those used for floor live loads.
Implementation Progress and Barriers: Currently, there is no known research
addressing the issue of an appropriate nominal live load for typical residential sloped
roofs. The nominal roof live load value of 20 psf and adjustments for roof slope do
not appear to have an empirical basis. Furthermore, the provisions of Chapter 2 of
ASCE 7 provide load combinations where roof live load, Lr, is combined with other
design loads such as wind. Guidance in the commentary implies that judgment is
required in the use of load combinations, but does not explicitly identify combined
loading situations where roof live load may be appropriately dismissed from
consideration. This lack of specificity in ASCE 7 and building codes is considered a
source of confusion among local authorities and design professionals. This issue is
more clearly addressed in 24 CFR Section 3280.305 (and NFPA 501 Section 4.5.2.2)
for manufactured housing as follows:
"... The roof live load or snow load shall not be considered as acting
simultaneously with the wind load, and the roof live or snow load and
floor live loads shall not be considered as resisting the overturning
moment due to wind."
Recommendations: Based on the above information, the special project committee
recommends the following:
• A proposal should be prepared and submitted to the strength design task group of
ASCE 7 responsible for the load combinations of Chapter 2. The proposal should
clarify the intent in using roof live loads in combination with other design loads
and provide some examples where it may be excluded (e.g., combination with
wind on a sloped roof and combination with other live loads such as floor and
attic live loads).
• A study should be conducted to validate the use of the nominal roof live load of
20 psf in relation to typical residential or light-frame sloped roof construction,
including roof maintenance and repair activities and practices for staging roofing
materials on the roof surface. The study should also consider any limitations to
benefits in changing the nominal roof live load due to the effects of other loads
on a roof such as wind, snow, and a concentrated live load. Furthermore, the
study should examine ways to simplify the prescription of roof live loads for
residential buildings, possibly by specifying an appropriate roof live load for two
or more categories (i.e., flat roof deck vs. sloped roof construction) as has been
done in the past (FHA, 1958; HUDa, 2001; HUDb, 2001). See Appendix A.

Topic #4 Attic Live Loads

Description: Similar to roof live load situation, attic live loads do not appear to be
based on a load survey and statistics on sustained or transient attic storage loads.
Building codes and standards have varied in judgments on and requirements for attic
live (storage) loads. For example, in recent IBC building code deliberations, a long-
standing provision for attic live loads was revised on the basis of new judgments
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 13

without introducing new technical information to support the proposal or refute

previous practice. In addition, the application of attic live loads in combination with
other building live loads is not clearly addressed in current building codes and
standards, resulting in varying interpretations and design impacts.
Existing Knowledge: No study of attic storage load characteristics for typical
residential attic areas has been identified. In past design practice and building code
provisions (e.g., BOCA, 1996), attic live loads have been treated in two ways for
light-frame construction. In one method, a 10 psf live load is applied to the full extent
of the attic "floor" area to account for personnel loading under conditions of limited
access. As a second approach for attics with limited storage, a 20 psf live load is used
only in areas that meet criteria in relation to horizontal and vertical clearances in the
attic space. In the recent International Building Code (ICC, 2000), this practice has
been changed to require a 20 psf attic live load to be applied in all cases irregardless
of attic accessibility and space limitations. This change has caused significant design
impacts for many residential and commercial buildings and particularly roof trusses.
In response to this issue, the TPI 1-02 wood truss design standard has included the
following special provision for treatment of attic live loads in combination with other
building (or roof) live loads:
6.2.LI Attic live loads, other than floor live loads, that are applied to
the entire length of the bottom chord shall not be required to be
applied concurrently with other live loads.
The commentary of TPI 1-02 also explains that live loads in attic spaces applied to
areas on the basis of accessibility and degree of obstruction to the use of the space
(i.e., by attic floor to roof clearance and truss web members) is consistent with past
successful practice and building code provisions.
The ASCE 7-02 standard is silent on this issue but includes attic live loads of 10 psf
(without storage) and 20 psf (with storage). In the 1958 MPS, attic live loads were
specified as 15 psf (dead + live load) for roof slopes of 3:12 or less without storage;
20 psf (live load) for attics with limited storage and roof slope of over 3:12; and 30
psf for attics served by a permanent or disappearing stair.
Implementation Progress and Barriers: As discussed above, the treatment of attic
loads has relied primarily on judgment and accepted practice. This has created some
instability in design practice, building code provisions, and design impacts. ASCE 7
does not address any specific practice in the application of attic live loads and simply
provides two values. Given that most light-frame roofs are designed using metal plate
connected wood trusses, the provisions of the TPI 1-02 standard and ASCE 7-02
standard should be coordinated in regard to the application of attic live loads.
Recommendation:
• A proposal to address the application of attic live loads in ASCE 7 should be
prepared and coordinated with attic load provisions in the TPI 1-02 wood truss
design standard. In the absence of new technical information, the proposal should
be based on past successful industry design practice. The proposal should be
submitted to the live load task committee of ASCE 7 for consideration. The
14 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

proposal should address space and area limitations in attic spaces as well as
intentions for use of attic live loads in combination with other extreme loads.
This latter issue may also require coordination with or a separate proposal to the
strength task committee of ASCE 7 in regard to use of attic loads in load
combinations.
• A study of attic use characteristics should be conducted (i.e., load survey) to
provide a qualitative, probabilistic treatment of attic storage loads. The study or
survey should address use of attic spaces in homes constructed in accordance
with modern building codes and practices while considering effects such as type
of access, regulatory restrictions, amount of attic insulation, type of roof framing
(e.g., truss or rafter), slope of roof (i.e., roof to attic floor clearances), and other
factors that may govern the ability to store items in attic areas.

Topic #5 Multi-story Floor Live Load Coincidence

Description: The live load area reductions in ASCE 7 are limited to influence areas
of greater than 400 ft2. In design of residential construction, influence areas for
individual repetitive framing elements (i.e., studs and joists) are narrow, long, and
commonly less than the 400 ft2 influence area limitation in ASCE 7, even for multi-
story loading conditions. In such cases, live load area reductions of ASCE 7 do not
apply even though a multi-story live load coincidence effect may be present for
influence areas of less than 400 fr.
Existing Knowledge: The probabilistic treatment of floor live loads is addressed in
several references (Peir and Cornell, 1973; Ellingwood and Culver, 1977; Corotis, et
al., 1981; Harris, et al., 1981; Chalk and Corotis, 1980). More recently, multi-story
live load coincidence effects have been subject to limited investigation (Rosowsky,
2001). The findings indicate that, depending on the level of correlation between live
load processes on different stories, the accumulative multi-story nominal design live
load may be reduced by a factor of 0.4 to 1.0. It is further recognized that differences
in level of multi-story live load temporal correlation may be dependent on the nature
of the residential occupancy. For typical single-family detached dwellings and
townhouses of multiple stories, upper stories are often used as sleeping areas whereas
the lower story level is used for day-time activity and gathering purposes. Based on
this information, a live load reduction factor of 0.7 has been recommended and used
in Structural Design Loads for One- and Two-Family Dwellings (HUDa, 2001).
However, this multi-story live load coincidence factor is not applied simultaneously
with live load area reductions as currently formulated in ASCE 7. Instead, use of the
greater of the two reductions (as applicable) is recommended.
Implementation Progress and Barriers: Existing knowledge on multi-story live load
coincidence effects is limited and lacks confirmation in terms of loading statistics and
load process modeling that reflects actual use characteristics of different types of
residential occupancies. Current recommendations for consideration of multi-story
live load coincidence are based primarily on judgment in applying a limited study of
the effects for one- and two-family residential construction (Rosowsky, 2001; HUDa,
2001). In addition, the consideration of multi-story live load coincidence should be
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 15

carefully coordinated with application of live load area reductions in ASCE 7 to

avoid potential miss-application resulting in unconservative live load determinations.
Recommendations:
• The effects of multi-story live load coincidence should be subject to further
study to develop and confirm appropriate load process model for residential
occupancies (mainly one- and two-family dwellings) and to better substantiate an
appropriate live load adjustment.
• Based on existing knowledge, and additional study as deemed necessary, a
proposal should be prepared to account for multi-story live load coincidence for
consideration by the live load task committee of ASCE 7.

Topic #6 Floor Live Load Area Reduction for Residential Buildings

Description: Live load area reductions differ according to building occupancy. The
equation currently used in ASCE 7 is based on data and analysis of various types of
building uses including residential occupancies (Harris et al., 1981). Based on use of
a residential live load of 40 psf, the analysis by Harris, et al. shows that area live load
reductions should apply to tributary areas of 200 ft2 or greater (see also HUD, 2001;
FHA, 1958 - see Appendix A). In addition, the influence area factors (KLL in
Table 4-2 of ASCE 7) do not specifically address residential bearing wall conditions
which should appear to use a KLL factor of 2.
Existing Knowledge: See Topic #5.
Implementation Progress and Barriers: There appear to be no significant barriers or
technical challenges in addressing this item with existing knowledge.
Recommendations: Based on the above information, the following recommendations
are given:
• A proposal should be prepared for consideration by the live load task committee
of ASCE 7 for the purpose of clarifying appropriate KLL factors to use for design
of light-frame building systems. It appears that light-frame bearing walls should
be designed using a KLL of 2 and that interior support columns (e.g., basement
columns) should be designed for a KLL of 4.

Topic #7 Wind Shielding

Description: The consideration of wind exposure and shielding is very important to

efficient design. This observation is particularly true for residential buildings because
they are typically located in a near-ground wind environment with numerous
obstructions to wind. (HUD, 2001, HUD, 1993; NAHB-RC, 1996; NAHB-RC, 2002;
HUD, 1999; Crandell & Kochkin, 2003; Crandell et al., 2000; Ho, 1992, HUD, 1998;
St. Pierre et al., 2003). Currently, the effects of wind shielding are not permitted to be
considered in the design of residential buildings following ASCE 7. The closely
related topic of wind exposure is addressed as Topic #8.
16 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

Existing Knowledge: The power-law or log-law wind velocity profile is used in

ASCE 7 and in most wind engineering standards to account for various building site
exposures (surface roughness categories) and their effect on wind velocity with
height (HUD, 1998). These boundary layer wind velocity profile relationships apply
only to "straight winds" in the earth's boundary layer (lower atmosphere) and to wind
flow above the interfacial layer. The interfacial layer is the layer nearest to ground
that is occupied by objects that obstruct wind flow (e.g., trees, buildings, etc.). In
effect, the boundary layer wind velocity profile is formed in response to the apparent
roughness sensed below in the interfacial layer.
In truly open, grassy, flat terrain (exposure C) the interfacial layer is of a negligible
height and the boundary layer wind velocity profile is displaced above the earth
surface no more than the height of a stand of grass. However, in exposure B settings
(suburban and /or wooded terrain) the boundary layer wind velocity profile is
displaced considerably above the ground surface depending on the density, porosity,
and height of obstructions to wind flow (HUD, 1998). Several analytical methods are
available to estimate the displacement height of the boundary layer wind velocity
profile based on configuration or type of obstructions to wind flow (HUD, 1998).
This displacement of the boundary layer wind profile is a by-product of wind
shielding effects.
Below the displacement height (within the interfacial layer), the wind is still flowing
but has different characteristics than in the "free flowing" boundary layer above.
First, the wind velocity profile below the displacement height (within the interfacial
layer) follows an exponential form (concave downward). Wind shear or rate of
change of velocity with height is fairly high in the transition between the boundary
layer wind velocity profile above and the interfacial layer wind velocity profile
below. Thus, wind speeds tend to drop off sharply as height above ground decreases
into the interfacial layer. Second, while wind velocity is significantly decreased in the
interfacial layer relative to wind speeds in the boundary layer above, the turbulence
intensity of wind is dramatically increased. This is an important effect because it
tends to increase wind surface pressure coefficients used to determine wind loads on
buildings based on a reference velocity pressure (which for wind engineering
purposes is based on a turbulence intensity associated with a standard open terrain
boundary layer wind flow as modeled in a wind tunnel). Thus, increases in turbulence
intensity can result in a smaller reduction in wind load than would be expected by
considering reductions in wind velocity alone due to shielding effects in the
interfacial layer.
The effects of shielding have been investigated in a wind monitoring project
(Crandell et aL, 2000). The study included a 187-foot tower and five near ground
wind stations (9.8 feet) distributed more or less randomly in a typical built-up
suburban setting with large open areas, streets, buildings, treed areas, and minor
topographic features. Wind characteristics reported included gust and average wind
speeds, velocity profiles, turbulence intensity, annual extremes, and spatial variability
of extreme wind speeds. The study also made comparisons to wind velocity profiles
used in the ASCE 7 standard using the observed annual extreme wind velocity profile
shape (as opposed to a single "straight wind" event's profile shape). Among several
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 17

findings considered to be important to the characterization of wind for engineering

purposes, the findings relevant to shielding indicate that the average annual extreme
wind speed in the interfacial layer can be over-stated by as much as 50 percent on
average compared to use of a boundary layer wind profile as used in the ASCE 7
standard to predict wind speeds below a standard 32.8 feet height above ground. This
over-estimation error is increased to 70 percent if the boundary layer wind profile is
truncated at an elevation of 32.8 feet as is currently done in the ASCE 7 standard. As
mentioned, the degree of conservative error in wind speed characterization does not
necessarily correspond to an equivalent degree of error in wind load estimation for
reasons of increased turbulence intensity in the interfacial layer and its effect on
surface pressure coefficients.
The effect of shielding on building wind loads due to the combined effects of reduced
wind speed and increased turbulence in built-up near ground wind environments has
been quantified in an extensive wind tunnel study (Ho, 1992). The study found that
shielding in a typical built-up (exposure B) wind environment results in a 25 percent
reduction in average peak local area wind loads based on generation of several
thousand aerodynamic data sets from several different building models in several
different arrangements of built-up surroundings. Changes were recommended for the
Canadian wind load provisions. An additional study on shielding effects was reported
to be in progress at the University of Western Ontario wind tunnel facility at the time
of this writing.
The Australian Wind Code for Housing (AS 4055-1992) includes simplified and
conservative reduction factors of 0.85 and 0.95 to account for two categories of
shielding in otherwise suburban wind exposures (exposure B). Greater reductions for
shielding are possible in accordance with the more detailed methods of the Australian
Wind Code (AS 1170.2, 2002).
One recently reported study of shielding effects on manufactured homes was
conducted at Texas Tech University wind tunnel (Gurley, Kiesling, and Letchford,
2003). The authors pose the following question for their research:
"The disregard of shielding in ASCE 7-02, yet its incorporation in the
Australian Wind Load Code begs the question: How important is
shielding on a structure and what parameters influence the magnitude
of shielding?"
In their study, reductions in wind uplift and drag (lateral force) due to variations in
shielding effect (spacing of buildings and number of upwind rows of buildings) were
investigated and compared to similar Australian wind tunnel experiments, the
Australian wind code provisions for shielding, and ASCE 7 wind provisions (which
disregard shielding). An open country upwind exposure was used throughout the
study. Relative to loads experienced with an isolated model, the following
observations were made based on a preliminary analysis of results:
1. Shielding effects were present with one or two rows of upwind buildings and
additional rows provided little additional shielding effect [This finding
demonstrates the short transition length needed to displaced the boundary layer
wind velocity profile and realize shielding effects - a matter of a 100 feet or less
18 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

(full-scale) whereas it may require several thousand feet for the entire boundary
layer wind profile to respond up to gradient height which is the basis of the
exposure transition lengths required by ASCE 7].
2. Pronounced reductions in drag and uplift due to shielding was realized for
building spacings of up to eight eave heights in the upwind direction. Shielding
effects were negligible at spacings of about 16 eave heights or more. [This study
did not include treed conditions that are common to residential developments].
3. Compared to ASCE 7-02, shielding accounted for a mean drag and uplift
coefficient reduction of 80 percent for the closest building spacing of four times
eave height. At a spacing of eight times the eave height, the shielding uplift load
reduction was about 60 percent and the drag load reduction was about 25 percent.
4. Compared to a similar Australian wind tunnel study used as the basis for the
Australian Wind Code shielding adjustments, the Australian results are
conservative (result in higher loads) for building spacings of 8h or less (drag) and
16h or less (uplift). However, the trend in shielding effects is similar. For
example, the Australian study shows a roughly 40 percent reduction in wind load
for a building spacing of 4h (about one-half the amount of reduction found in the
TTU wind tunnel study). This appears to indicate that the simplified shielding
adjustment factors used in the Australian Wind Code for Housing
(AS 4055-1992) are quite conservative.
In a similar study, surface pressures and load actions were studied on a two-story
house model subjected to an up-wind suburban wind profile with surroundings
varying between isolated model and developed (built-up) conditions (St. Pierre et al.,
2003). Future studies are also planned. The following typical reductions in wind loads
due to shielding afforded by surrounding development were reported:
1. Sidewall component and cladding pressure (middle of wall) was reduced
25 percent relative to the isolated building condition.
2. Roof corner component and cladding pressure was reduced by 60 percent.
3. Roof ridge component and cladding pressure was reduced by 40 percent.
4. Wood truss vertical uplift reaction (roof to wall connection force) was reduced by
40 percent.
In observation of these findings, the authors of the study make the following
statement:
"It can be concluded from these general observations that
surrounding houses significantly reduce wind loads and this should be
taken into account in any design of these structures."
The same observation would also apply to houses surrounded by trees or mixed trees
and development. As an additional indication that wind shielding effects are an
important consideration in determination of building loads, the ground-to-roof snow
load conversion in ASCE 7 provides adjustment for wind "shading" (shielding) to
account for increases in roof snow loads.
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 19

Implementation Progress and Barriers: The ASCE 7 standard currently disallows

any consideration of shielding unless a site-specific wind tunnel study is conducted.
While this recognizes that shielding effects can affect building wind loads, it creates
an economic barrier to the consideration of shielding for residential and similar scales
of building projects. A generalized treatment of shielding effects for low-rise building
populations in built-up, suburban, or wooded terrain conditions has yet to be
implemented in the United States, though some consideration has been recently given
to this topic by the ASCE 7 wind task committee with action deferred. The Australian
wind code for housing has addressed this important issue by creating two categories
of wind shielding and establishing conservative wind load reduction factors for use in
suburban or wooded exposure conditions. The Australian wind code also provides a
more detailed method to account for shielding effects in combination with a more
detailed site-specific exposure analysis. Existing research and international wind
loading standards should provide an adequate basis for generalization of shielding
effects in ASCE 7.
Recommendation:
• A task committee within ASCE SEI TAD Wind Effects should be formed to
evaluate available technical resources on wind shielding effects and to develop
appropriate guidelines for the consideration of generalized shielding effects for
low-rise buildings in built-up or wooded exposure B environments for
consideration by ASCE 7. Exposure transition lengths in shielded conditions
should also be considered. For example, the transition length to fully displace the
boundary layer wind profile may be more important than the transition length
required to develop the full boundary layer wind profile up to a gradient height
of more than 1000 feet above ground. The Australian wind code provisions for
shielding should be considered in developing a plausible approach.

Topic #8 Characterization of Suburban and Wooded Wind Exposure

Description: Appropriately defining the wind exposure or roughness category of a

building site may be as important to risk-consistent building design as the wind
climate itself. For residential buildings and low-rise construction in general, the
exposure B terrain condition suburban/wooded surroundings) is commonly
applicable. However, the current derivation of velocity pressure coefficients in
ASCE 7 for this terrain condition tends toward a conservative wind load
determination. In part, this tendency is due to the broad range of terrain conditions
addressed by the exposure B classification.
Existing Knowledge: The effect of surface roughness on the boundary layer wind
profile (for "straight" or large scale cyclonic winds) is well established. The difficulty
however, lies in selection of an appropriate categorization of surface roughness for
design purposes. One study has indicated that designers will tend to select a
conservative exposure category for a given site (Ellingwood and Tekie, 1998). In
addition, the Kz values are conservatively defined for exposure B in ASCE 7 because
they are based on a lower-bound surface roughness (z0 = 5.9 inches) for this broad
category of building exposure. Compared to a more typical exposure B condition
20 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

(z0 = 0.98 feet), the ASCE 7 design wind load is conservative by about 67 percent
(based on ratio Kz values for the two z0 values, 0.7/0.42 = 1.67) which also agrees
with wind tunnel and wind monitoring data (Ho, 1992; Crandell, et al., 2000). The
degree of conservatism is even greater for common exposure B conditions where
surface roughness may include dense development or development mixed with trees
(Zo = 2.29 feet).
According to several residential building performance surveys comprising a random
selection of more than 1000 homes in several southern and eastern regions of the
United States, as many as 95 percent of sampled homes were located in a suburban
(exposure B) setting as described by ASCE 7 and, in about two-thirds of these cases,
the homes were embedded within or surrounded by stands of trees (HUD, 1993;
NAHB Research Center, 1996; NAHB Research Center, 2002; HUD, 2001).
Therefore, the boundary layer wind profile for the majority of home sites is more
reflective of z0 values of 0.98 feet or greater. In these conditions, shielding is an
additional factor that should be considered for buildings of comparable or lesser
height than the surrounding roughness (see Topic #1).
Implementation Barriers and Progress: The ASCE 7 wind task committee has
begun to consider modifications to the Kz values for exposure B in the current update
cycle for ASCE 7-02, but has chosen to defer action. In addition, a truncated
exposure B profile has been maintained. The reasons for these actions include
concerns that designers may incorrectly specify exposure and that ongoing research
may provide additional insights into an appropriate level of adjustment for main wind
force vs. components and cladding wind loads. However, the recent studies discussed
above provide mounting evidence that changes should be considered. The Australian
wind code addresses this concern by including two exposure conditions for suburban
settings by defining two development densities, one of which also corresponds to
wooded terrain. Similarly, the snow load provisions of ASCE 7 include several wind
and exposure and sheltering conditions for the explicit purpose of minimizing the
magnitude of user "error" that may occur as a result of differing opinions in
classifying a site (see ASCE 7 commentary C7.3.1).
Recommendation:
• The Wind Effects Committee in SEI TAD should continue to consider available
and new technical resources on wind exposure for suburban settings, including
consideration of typical residential buildings and exposures, to develop improved
Kz factors for exposure B that are representative of wind loads experienced by
the population of buildings in these conditions. Also, the need to truncate Kz
factors at an elevation of 30 feet should be re-evaluated. Alternatively or
additionally, an added exposure category should be considered to establish a
more representative suburban exposure and minimize the degree of under- or
over-estimation error that may occur in current practice with use of the ASCE 7
exposure B wind loads. The Australian wind code provisions may serve as a
model for this purpose. Any differing effect of exposure condition (wind speed
and turbulence) on main wind force and local area (components and cladding)
wind loads should also be considered based on recent research. As an additional
consideration, methods to calculate Kz based on an assessment of surrounding
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 21

surface roughness should be moved from the commentary of ASCE 7 and

introduced to the text of the standard.

Topic #9 Wind-borne Debris

Description: A wind-borne debris region definition was added to recent building

codes and the 1998 edition of the ASCE 7 standard to regulate consideration of wind-
debris protection in the design of buildings. This definition is associated with an
ASTM standard referenced by ASCE 7 that provides debris impact resistance criteria
within the declared wind-borne debris region (ASTM, 2002). The basis for the wind-
borne debris region definition in ASCE 7 and ASTM E 1996 is founded on judgment
and overlooks the effects of some fundamentally important variables such as wind
exposure. In addition, the principles of performance-based engineering, whereby
target reliability is established in association with a particular design limit state and is
uniformly applied across all applicable hazard levels, has not been implemented.
Instead, a rather unique and unprecedented approach has been used by the ASTM
committee to justify selected impact criteria on the basis of "improving reliability by
50 percent" rather than establishing and uniformly implementing a target level of
reliability based on a rational calibration to accepted risk as has been done for other
building loads in ASCE 7 through a landmark study conducted by NIST (NBS,
1980).
In summary, the basis of the wind-borne debris region definition in ASCE 7 as well
as the basis of impact criteria in the ASTM standard is technically inconsistent with
the reliability basis of loading criteria used in the development of loads and load
combinations in ASCE 7. Furthermore, key variables affecting debris hazard are
neglected (e.g., wind exposure). Therefore, it is questionable that the current wind
debris provisions in ASCE 7 and ASTM El996 are technically robust.
Existing Knowledge: Much of the existing knowledge on the effects of wind-borne
debris is based on anecdotal wind damage surveys (e.g., Beason et al., 1983; Kareem,
1986; etc.) and are often related to specific conditions affecting debris hazard (e.g.,
rooftop gravel) and building vulnerability (e.g., glass building facades). Therefore,
they are of limited application and must be extrapolated to make more generalized
inferences on debris risks in a population of buildings under varying hazard and
vulnerability conditions.
More recently, wind-borne debris damage has been statistically quantified in
experimentally controlled building performance surveys following major wind events
(HUD, 1993; NAHB Research Center, 1996; NAHB Research Center, 2002). The
results of these studies are useful for quantification of debris hazard and building
vulnerability and have been used for the purpose of calibrating and verifying
probabilistic building damage risk models (HUD, 1999; ARA, 2003). For example,
in Hurricane Andrew about 90 percent of residential buildings experienced one or
more broken windows in a wind field of about 160 mph over the region from which
over 400 building samples were randomly selected. Many of the buildings had no
window protection or make-shift protections in place at the time the hurricane struck.
The design wind speed for this region of South Florida is 145 mph. In contrast, about
22 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

2 percent of the buildings in a sample of 200 homes in Hurricane Opal experienced

one or more broken windows and were located on the barrier islands. Hurricane
Opal's wind speeds were a maximum of 125 mph gust at one location on landfall and
the wind speed over the study region ranged from 100 to 110 mph (standard exposure
C, 33 feet elevation). The lack of window and building damage inland was associated
with the treed and suburban exposure condition (see Topics #1 and #8).
In addition, wind-borne debris impact data was collected and evaluated based on a
representative sample of 200 buildings experiencing a tornado ranging in F-scale
from F2 to F4 (F3 on average along the distance of the tornado path surveyed)
(NAHB Research Center, 2002). In the vortex region, 81 percent of the sampled
homes experienced one or more glazed opening penetrations; within 150 feet of the
vortex (i.e., in-flow winds), this number dropped to 52 percent; farther out from the
vortex the number dropped again to about 13 percent. For building wall penetrations,
the comparative frequencies of one or more penetrations were 43 percent, 22 percent,
and 0 percent, respectively. From this data as well as data on impact fragility of
building products (HUD, 2002; Clemson, 2000) and normalization of wall and
opening areas, it was found that debris impacts to glazed openings were rarely more
than 10 Ib-s (momentum), but typically greater than 2 Ib-s in an average F3 tornado.
Thus, a 10 Ib-s protective device on glazed openings would prevent about 92 percent
of the homes from having even a single glazed opening failure due to penetration
from flying debris in an average F3 tornado. Furthermore, the level of structural
damage experienced on average was correlated to wind speed of approximately 165
mph based on similarity of damage statistics documented in the Hurricane Andrew
study. For this type of wind condition, these impact levels are significantly less than
those currently required by the provisions of ASCE 7 and ASTM E 1996.
Hurricane damage risk models have also been developed and verified using actual
event data for the purpose of evaluating cost-benefits of various wind-resistant
building features, including various wind-borne debris protection strategies (Twisdale
and Vickery, 2003; Young and Twisdale, 2003). Based on selected benefits and costs,
the model shows a general economic benefit for wind-borne debris protection
strategies (e.g., 33 percent reduction in average annual loss or about a 15 percent
reduction in relative loss in combination with other typical wind-resistant design
features in new construction). The individual relative importance of various wind-
resistant building features in reducing modeled building loss relativities is
approximately as follows:
1. Use of hurricane clips instead of toe-nails (gives about a 60 percent reduction in
relative loss)
2. Use of wind resistant shingles instead of standard shingles (gives about 30 percent
reduction in relative loss)
3. Use of 8d nail instead of 6d nail at standard spacings in roof sheathing (gives
about a 20 to 40 percent reduction in relative loss)
4. Use of foundation anchors in lieu of nothing (gives about a 30 percent reduction
in relative loss)
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 23

5. Use of hip roof instead of gable roof (gives about a 25 percent reduction in
relative loss)
6. Use of one story instead of two story construction (gives about a 20 to 25 percent
reduction in relative loss)
7. Use of basic debris protection instead of none (gives about a 15 to 20 percent
reduction in relative loss)
8. Use of secondary roof water barrier only provides about 3 percent reduction in
relative loss if wind resistant shingles are used (15 percent if they are not used).
However, the economic benefits of these loss reductions are generally accrued to
insurers rather than building owners since many states lack a risk-consistent structure
for regulation of insurance rates and rate incentives for recognition of building
features that lower economic loss vulnerability, such as wind-borne debris protection.
Instead, policies in lower hazard areas are often used to subsidize higher loss ratios in
higher hazard areas. The actual dollar magnitude of annual average loss is also very
dependent on the value of the construction, site exposure, wind speed climate,
building configuration (e.g., roof shape, building height, amount of feiiestration, etc.),
and value of the building and its contents. Therefore, the benefits of debris protection
are not consistent for all types of buildings (or occupants) that may be required to
have debris protection. As shown above, the benefits of wind-borne debris protection
ranks about seventh among eight wind-resistant construction features and do not
appear to be more significant than the choice of roof style or number of stories, which
currently are not regulated.
Localities have been politically motivated to reject or modify current wind-borne
debris criteria found in model building codes, ASCE 7, and ASTM standards for a
variety of reasons such as:
• the benefits are variable and primarily economic in nature,
• the economic concern is considered to be an "insurance rate issue,"
• local experience and judgment differs significantly from that represented on
national standards and building code committees,
• debris regions (particularly in areas with basic wind speed of less than 120 mph)
have not been sufficiently justified relative to local experience and on a credible
basis of maintaining an acceptable and consistent target reliability, and
• the variable cost and limited availability of wind-borne debris protection devices
meeting ASTM El996 specifications and other criteria (e.g., energy code and
aesthetics).
Recent examples of rejection or significant modification of debris protection criteria
include the North Carolina coast and the Florida gulf coast (panhandle). Conversely,
other areas have adopted the provisions without modification. In general, the
adoption process is in a state of uncertainty and change. In addition, building code
provisions maintain alternative protections that have been considered as acceptable
practice by experience (e.g., plywood window coverings) and that provide a
24 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

significant level of debris protection (ARA, 2002), but are not necessarily consistent
with debris impact requirements in ASTM E 1996 as referenced by ASCE 7 and
current model building codes.
Recommendations:
• Research toward development of target reliability for establishing limits to a
defined wind borne debris region and impact criteria to be applied within that
region (including effects of key variables such as exposure) is needed. The
research should consider calibration to a target reliability representing a range of
accepted practice. The calibration exercise should be conducted using a clearly
defined damage limit state criteria in relation to economic and building design
impacts (e.g., internal pressurization of a breached building). If necessary, an
average result of the reliability calibration conditions should be selected to
minimize departures from the selected calibration points as a whole. Calibration
points representing currently accepted levels of debris risk include South
Florida's 140+ mph wind climate with locally required debris protection,
130 mph wind climate using plywood covering as debris protection, and a 110
mph wind climate with standard glazing and located at or near the coast without
wind debris protection. Following such a calibration methodology, wind debris
criteria and the wind borne debris region can then be defined following a
consistent and credible basis for performance (e.g., target reliability) and in
consideration of fundamental hazard variables such as wind exposure.
• Based on the above research, a proposal should be prepared for consideration by
the ASCE 7 wind task committee and coordinated with the ASCE 7 strength
(load combination) task committee and the ASTM wind borne debris task
committee.

Topic #10 Air-permeable Cladding Wind Loads

Description: Wind loads on air-permeable claddings are typically less than loads
calculated across the entire building wall or roof system in accordance with ASCE 7
provisions. While ASCE 7 recognizes that air-permeable cladding load reductions are
valid, guidance is lacking on methods of testing to determine wind load adjustments
for air-permeability cladding products, and a generalized calculation method for air-
permeable cladding load effects based on the degree of porosity or venting of the
cladding system does not exist.
Existing Knowledge: Certain material standards (e.g., ASTM standard for vinyl
siding) give recognition of a 50% cladding load reduction due to air-permeability,
although the technical justification of this level of reduction is not known. Air-
permeable cladding load reductions for various other cladding types (e.g. wood lap
siding, brick veneer, etc.) is lacking.
The Forest Products Laboratory has conducted full-scale wind pressure
measurements on one type of air-permeable cladding (hardboard siding) installed on
a test building (TenWolde et al., 1998). The cladding pressures experienced was
approximately two-thirds of the total pressure differential across the wall system.
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 25

Research sponsored by the National Roofing Contractors Association has developed a

method for determining roof shingle loads, also relying on full-scale pressure
monitoring on a test building (Peterka, et al, 1997). In this full-scale study, air-
permeable cladding wind load reductions were as high as 75 percent. Studies of
various cladding systems with varying degrees venting and resulting pressure-
equalization (known as pressure-equalized or pressure-moderated rain-screen
cladding) have also shown cladding load reductions similar to that reported above
(CMHC, 2000, 2001, 1998, 1997, and 1996). A simplified computer model has also
been developed to predict pressure equalization effects for air-permeable or "rain-
screen" cladding systems (CMHCa, 1996). Methods to accurately assess air-
permeability wind load reductions are not standardized and often rely on expensive
whole building pressure measurements under actual wind loads.
Implementation Progress & Barriers: Current building codes and standards do not
give adequate guidance on air-permeable cladding wind loads. In some cases, air-
permeable claddings are specifically not permitted to be considered as air-permeable
and must be designed for significantly higher loads than actual. This problem affects
accuracy and economy of design of claddings as well as attachment methods. For
example, 24 CFR Part 3280 is interpreted by HUD to require that vinyl siding
cladding loads cannot be reduced for air-permeability. However, the ASTM D3679-
96a standard for vinyl siding specifically includes a reduction for air-permeability.
Attempts to include available air-permeability data (in terms of cladding load
reductions factors) for some exterior finish materials in the ASCE 7 wind provisions
have been rejected without clarifying a method by which air-permeability load
reductions may be considered in the future.
Recommendations:
• A literature search on the topic of air-permeable cladding wind loads is needed.
Methods to calculate wind loads on air-permeable cladding systems or porous
wall systems should also be sought in the literature.
• Basic research is needed to develop a suitable general test methodology for
determining air-permeable cladding load effects, develop a data set of load
characteristics for a variety of air-permeable cladding products with differing
degrees of porosity, and evaluate the data to formulate a generalized method for
calculating air-permeability load adjustments based on fundamental cladding
properties (e.g., degree of porosity or ventilation).
• A proposal should be submitted to the ASCE 7 wind task committee to clarify
intentions for the proper characterization of air-permeable cladding loads and in
what form air-permeable cladding load adjustments may be recognized for use
by the design community and cladding product manufacturers. Any position
taken by ASCE 7 wind task committee should be communicated and coordinated
with appropriate standards development activities within ASTM.
26 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

Topic #11 Unbalanced and Drift Snow Loads

Description: For residential buildings, designers have often used a ground snow load
value as a conservative uniform roof snow load (without conversion to roof snow
load). This practice has been successful for the design of typical sloped roof systems
on homes and similar buildings. Unbalanced and drift snow load is generally not
explicitly considered, except on occasion at features such as down-steps in a roof
system. While there have been few problems with this simple approach to residential
building design, there is room for improved characterization of unbalanced and drift
snow loads on residential-scale roofs.
Existing Knowledge: In the research forming the basis for ground-to-roof snow load
conversion factor used in ASCE 7 (e.g. pr = 0.7pg), drift or unbalanced roof snow
loads were not studied and statistics on the location, shape, and magnitude of drift
loads are generally not available for probabilistic evaluation (O'Rourke, Koch, and
Redfield, CRREL Report 83-1, 1983). In substitution, case studies of primarily
commercial building roofs (i.e., long spans and low slopes) and analysis of the same
have been used to define drift and unbalanced snow loads in ASCE 7. Thus, these
loads are not necessarily quantified on a probabilistic bases (e.g., what is a 50-year
return period drift load for a given roof configuration?) Conversely, the statistical
knowledge of ground snow loads and variables affecting ground-to-roof snow load
conversion for the determination of uniform snow load on roofs is relatively well
established and provides a probabilistic basis for the uniform snow load parameters
found in ASCE 7 and the load factor applied to uniform roof snow loads in load
combinations (Ellingwood and Redfield, 1983; O'Rourke, Koch, and Redfield, 1983)
Implementation Progress and Barriers: Unbalanced and drift snow loads in ASCE 7
are essentially deterministic in nature and are assumed to occur at levels prescribed in
perfect correlation with the occurrence of extreme uniform ground and roof snow
loads. The primary obstacle in treating unbalanced and drift snow loads in a
probabilistic manner is in the difficulty of obtaining statistically robust field data
characterizing unbalanced and drift snow occurrences on roofs of a representative
sample of buildings (similar to that done for the study of uniform roof snow loads by
CRREL). Modeling of snow transport processes and the stochastic nature of variables
affecting drift and unbalanced snow loading (e.g., wind speed, wind direction,
building aerodynamics, and snow data) may be used to generate extreme value
statistics for typical drift and unbalanced snow load formations. In addition, special
features of small residential roofs (such as flow attachment and saltation distance for
snow particles) could be addressed through aerodynamic studies (e.g., wind tunnel
testing). The modeling work could be verified by a limited collection of drift and
unbalanced snow load case histories for typical residential (and commercial)
buildings. From the data, the magnitude and spatial extent of drift and unbalanced
roof snow loads could be characterized and also represented as simplified equivalent
uniform roof snow loads.
Recommendation:
• Conduct a research program (as described above) to characterize drift and
unbalanced snow loading provisions in ASCE 7 on a probabilistic basis. The
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 27

impact of such an effort on current design practice is unknown since the

probabilities associated with current unbalanced and drift snow load criteria in
ASCE 7 are unknown. However, it can be expected to improve risk-consistency
of designing for unbalanced and drift snow loads.

Topic #12 Lateral Soil Load on Residential Foundations

Description: Lateral soil loads in ASCE 7-02 and similar building regulations are
based on soil conditions (e.g., degree of compaction) that are not representative of
backfilling practice for residential foundation walls. At the same time, the traditional
use of a 30 pcf soil design value for residential foundation walls has been
discontinued from code recognition for unknown reasons. As a result, soil lateral
design loads have been significantly increased without clear justification relative to
past accepted practice for the design of residential foundation walls.
Existing Knowledge: In past design practice for residential and other similar shallow
foundation walls, a 30 pcf (equivalent fluid density) soil lateral design load has been
used successfully for backfill and soil placement conditions relevant to typical
residential construction practice. Provisions in ASCE require use of a 60 to 100 pcf
equivalent fluid density value for soils typically found on residential sites. The past
successful design experience in using a 30 pcf value is largely due to differences in
how soil is placed when backfilling foundation walls on residential buildings as
opposed to other applications where compaction of soils to near optimum density is
necessary and specified (e.g., retaining wall supporting a highway surface).
Footnote A of Table 5-1 of ASCE 7-02 clearly states that the soil lateral loads are
based on "moist soil at their optimum densities." The footnote further states that
"actual field conditions shall govern." One problem has been that the "actual field
conditions" of residential foundation wall backfill have not been known in terms of
actual lateral soil loads.
A recent study has monitored soil pressures on a residential foundation wall for two
soil types (clay and sand) and for several variations in typical soil placement practice
of loose, tamped, and frozen conditions (University of Alberta, 1992). The findings
from a roughly 1.5-year monitoring project justify the following earth pressure
coefficients based on observed lateral earth pressures on a typical 8-foot tall
residential foundation wall:
Clay, CL (frozen/thawed) Ka = 0.21
Clay, CL (tamped) Ka = 0.19
Clay, CL (loose) Ka = 0.34
Sand (loose) Ka = 0.26
Thus, for a typical clay soil (CL by Unified Soil Classification), an equivalent fluid
density of about 36 pcf (Ka x w = 0.34 x 105 pcf = 35.7 pcf) was the largest observed
value in the study. The other three values were in the range of 20 to 25 pcf equivalent
fluid density. Thus, the past use of a 30 pcf equivalent fluid density value for
determination of soil lateral loads on residential foundation walls does not appear to
be significantly in error, particularly considering that these loads and material
28 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

resistances are factored in the design of foundation walls. For comparison, the ASCE
7 standard (Table 5-1) requires that a value of 100 pcf be used for clay (CL) soil
backfill. The International Building Code (IBC) requires a 60 pcf value for this
condition. Both of these values are very conservative relative to the available data on
actual conditions of residential foundation soil pressures and relative to past accepted
design practice of using a 30 pcf value.
Implementation Progress and Barriers: Past accepted practice of using a 30 pcf
equivalent fluid density for determination of lateral soil pressures on shallow (less
than 10 feet deep) residential foundation walls has essentially disappeared from
current building codes. In replacement, the ASCE 7 standard's soil values are being
increasingly used, although some significant differences in current building code
requirements persist. While the 30 pcf value may have been rightly considered to be
unsuited for general application (all buildings and all soils), it has been shown in
recent research on residential foundations to be in reasonable agreement with
observed soil pressure for sand and clay soil types. Currently, there are no suitable
guidelines available for determining lateral soil pressures on residential or similar
foundation walls.
Recommendation:
• A proposal should be submitted to the ASCE 7 task committee responsible for
soil loads to consider re-instating an improved, simplified residential foundation
design criteria similar to that traditionally used for the design of residential
foundation walls under typical residential backfill placement conditions.

Topic #13 Simplification of Design Loads

Description: The theme of simplification of design load provisions for a narrow

scope of buildings, such as one- and two-family dwellings and manufactured homes,
was present in the committee discussions on several different load topics. It is a
concern that is voiced by many design practitioners. In the past, building codes have
contained very simple procedures that, given the uncertainties in any given design
application, have resulted in efficient and functional designs with minimal design
effort. One simplified approach in an early (1958) residential building code is
included in Appendix A. The approach in Appendix A was continued until such a
time that the HUD Minimum Property Standards were terminated by act of Congress
in the late 1960s and a new prescriptive residential building code, based in part on the
MPS, was developed by CABO. Thus, a simplified set of building load provisions for
residential construction has been absent from model residential building codes in the
United States for about 30 years.
Today, more homes than ever before require engineering design due to recent
changes in scope limitations to conventional construction requirements, changes in
housing styles, and changes in regulations for housing construction in earthquake and
hurricane-prone regions of the United States. Therefore, a modern simplified method
for determination of building loads for homes is probably in greater need today than
in the past. Such a method can effectively eliminate about 80 percent of the content of
the ASCE 7 by focusing only on coordinated and simplified provisions that provide
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 29

an adequate means of a complete design for typical residential buildings (HUDa,

2001).
Existing Knowledge: Simplified design load methods are dispersed throughout the
ASCE 7 standard and also are found in some newer and older building codes.
However, these methods are not easily identified and they are not necessarily
coordinated in terms of scope of application. For example, scope limits toward
application of the simplified wind load method in ASCE are not coordinated with
scope limits proposed for a new simplified method for seismic loads. Furthermore,
simplified methods that are intended for broad applications tend to mimic detailed
loading conditions (simply tabulating results of the detailed analysis method) without
considering the benefits of rounding-up and eliminating various loading conditions
that may be of little consequence to a particular application. An attempt has been
made, under sponsorship of HUD, to produce a coordinated and simplified building
load guide for application to homes and possibly other similar buildings (HUDa,
2001). Based on provisions found in Structural Design Loads for One- and Two-
Family Dwellings (HUDa, 2001), a simplified wind load procedure is included in
Appendix B of this document as an example. Simplified provisions for other loads,
with the possible exception of seismic loads, would require even less specification
when narrowly scoped for light-frame construction applications.
Recommendation:
• A simplified residential building load method should be considered as a separate
guide, included as a companion document to, or integrated with ASCE 7.
Alternatively, such a method could be formatted and submitted as a separate
chapter or appendix to the current model residential building code. The
information in Appendix A, Appendix B, and in Structural Design Loads for
One- and Two-Family Dwellings (HUDa, 2001) should serve as model for such
an effort.
The HUD simplified load guide is available as a PDF download at www.huduser.org
by searching for the title "Structural Design Loads for One- and Two-Family
Dwellings."

Topic #14 Performance Objectives and Target Reliability for Housing Design

Description: Residential buildings are a unique class of structures with unique and
varied structural performance requirements. Several efforts in the past have attempted
to quantify the performance attributes of housing and to develop performance
objectives and criteria based on those attributes. One example in the not too distant
past is HUD's Operation Breakthrough. More recently, guidelines for specifying
housing performance have been developed by ASTM committee E06. Perhaps of
greater importance, the housing market in the United States has expressed a variety of
levels of performance expectations in meeting housing needs over time. For example,
differences in performance expectations and market need for housing was recognized
in the early 1900s as a part of Sears and Roebuck Co.'s successful offering of
"standard-built" and "honor-built" kit homes (HUD, 2001). Today, manufactured
housing follows a unique performance-based regulation known as the HUD-code
30 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

which has existed for approximately 30 years. The HUD-code does not include
prescriptive construction requirements similar to those used for one- and two-family
dwelling construction in current model building codes.
Differences in end-use and associated performance expectations of the end-users are
not consistently reflected in current design or construction criteria for housing. In
addition, target reliabilities for minimum structural design requirements have been
conservatively calibrated to past design practice for primarily steel and concrete
(commercial) buildings (Ellingwood, et al, 1982; Galambos, et al, 1982; NBS, 1980).
Only recently has the structural reliability of housing been the subject of specialized
study for the purpose of eventually benchmarking a range of acceptable structural
reliability represented by housing characteristics over the time period of the past
century (Rosowsky, 2001). A framework for establishing structural safety and
serviceability performance guidelines for one- and two-family dwellings also has
been investigated (NIST, 1999). However, a minimum target reliability especially
intended for housing design that is consistent with past acceptable practice (as was
done when calibrating modern probabilistic design loads to past design reliability)
has not been thoroughly investigated or proposed.
Existing Knowledge: See above.
Implementation Progress and Barriers: There are complications to be considered in
how a separate performance basis for design of homes might be implemented. It
would not be appropriate to introduce a separate set of load combinations with
different factored loads. Should different target reliabilities for housing be justified as
might be expected, they would probably be similar to existing target reliabilities and
any difference may be handled within the existing format of importance factors.
Thus, different types of housing construction (with different levels of implied
importance) could have separately defined importance factors. In addition, enhanced
as well as minimum levels of performance could be codified for use. Furthermore, it
may be practical to indicate a "recommended" level of performance with a plus or
minus range indicative of uncertainties in calibration of target reliabilities to past
successful practice such that designers have some latitude in exercising reasonable
judgment in the design process.
Recommendations: There are many uncertainties and difficulties in how to approach
the topic of performance objectives for housing structural design. Investigation of
different target reliabilities for housing structural design should be continued with the
purpose of quantifying a range of "acceptable" performance based on past practice as
it may have varied for different housing needs addressed in the marketplace over
time. Based on an identified range of acceptable performance, a format for
implementing this information in the context of "performance-based design" also
needs consideration. One approach, building on the existing building code format for
structural design, should explore the use of "performance factors" in lieu of current
importance factors which are based solely on building use category without
consideration of different performance levels that may be acceptable (or desired)
within any given building type or use category.
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The special project committee has identified and reviewed a total of 14 topics related
to residential building loads over the course of two years, two committee meetings,
and three drafts of this document. The primary goals have been to compile existing
knowledge and to identify needs in regard to improving the accuracy and application
of structural loads for the purpose of efficient residential building design. The scope
of the work was focused mainly on issues and knowledge relevant to one- and two-
family dwellings as well as manufactured housing. However, there are many
instances were the findings are more broadly applicable. In addition, this work should
not necessarily be considered as exhaustive or complete, although every effort has
been made to include available and relevant information.
The key recommendations in regard to the 14 topics addressed in this document are
listed below. For a more detailed description of the topics and additional
recommendations, the reader is referred to the appropriate sections of this document.
Topic #1: Actual vs. Nominal Dead Loads - Need to update and possibly expand
generic (nominal) assembly dead loads in the ASCE 7 commentary to better reflect
actual estimated assembly dead loads of modern residential construction materials,
components, and assemblies.
Topic #2: Minimum Partition Wall Weight for Seismic Load Analysis - Use of a 10
psf minimum partition wall dead weight for seismic base shear analysis should be re-
evaluated in view of partition wall dead weights and structural implications relevant
to light-frame residential construction.
Topic #3; Use of Miscellaneous Roof Live Load - Use of the miscellaneous roof live
load, Lr, in ASCE 7 Chapter 4 should be clarified in regard to its use with load
combinations in Chapter 2; specifically, conditions where Lr may be appropriately
dismissed from consideration should be addressed (e.g., combinations involving Lr
and design wind load), particularly for typical residential sloped roofs.
Topic #4: Attic Live Loads - An attic live load study is needed to provide lacking
data on attic usage and loading characteristics; in the interim, ASCE 7 should
incorporate guidance in regard to application of specified attic loadings in regard to
area loads on attic members as well as combined loads on other portions of the
building.
Topic #5: Multi-story Floor Live Load Coincidence - The inclusion of a live load
adjustment for multi-story conditions relevant to single-occupancy residential
• buildings should be considered in ASCE 7. Supplemental research should be
conducted as necessary to address technical concerns and develop an acceptable
solution.
Topic #6: Floor Live Load Area Reduction for Residential Buildings - The use of
influence area factors (KL0 in ASCE 7 should be clarified in terms of their
application to light-frame, residential building assemblies and structural components.
Topic #7: Wind Shielding - The ASCE 7 wind task committee should continue to
consider new and existing technical information regarding wind shielding effects on

31
32 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

residential and similar low-rise construction. As considered feasible, an acceptable

and defensible methodology should be developed to account for shielding effects on
wind loads (MWFRS vs. components and cladding) and exposure transition lengths.
Topic #8: Characterization of Suburban and Wooded Wind Exposure - The ASCE
7 wind task committee should continue efforts to improve wind exposure
classification and to consider relevant sources of data. In particular, several
recommendations in regard to characterizing wind loads in the broadly defined
exposure B category should be considered (see previous section of report) as they are
very relevant to efficient and accurate residential and low-rise building design.
Topic #9: Wind-borne Debris - Research should be conducted in coordination with
ASCE 7 and ASTM committees to define an acceptable performance objective (target
reliability) for wind-borne debris protection and to use that target as an objective and
risk-consistent basis for determining extents of wind-borne debris hazard region as
well as required impact resistance levels in those regions.
Topic #W: Air-permeable Cladding Wind Loads - Methods by which air-permeable
cladding wind loading effects may be evaluated and recognized for use in design
need to be clarified and or developed in coordination with ASCE 7 and appropriate
ASTM committee(s).
Topic #11: Unbalanced and Drift Snow Loads - Research should be conducted to
establish a probabilistic basis for drift and unbalanced snow load provisions of
ASCE 7; field data on drift and unbalanced snow load magnitudes and patterns from
representative samples of residential roofs and other buildings should be collected to
underpin probabilistic modeling and resulting design loads.
Topic #12: Lateral Soil Load on Residential Foundations - Residential foundation
construction practices are not represented in the basis of the soil loads in Table 5.1 of
ASCE 7. For residential basement foundation walls, a design soil lateral load(s)
should be developed in consideration of recent research and past accepted practice.
Topic #13: Simplification of Design Loads - Simplification of building load
provisions is considered to be important to efficient and consistent residential
building design. Such a method has not existed in U.S. model codes for residential
construction since the late 1960s, yet the present need may be greater now than
before. Implementation of simplified load provisions for residential construction
should be considered and coordinated with ASCE 7 and current model building codes
in the United States.
Topic #14: Performance Objectives and Target Reliability for Housing Design -
This topic is one that was only casually discussed by the committee. However, it
may be considered important to overall design and future building load framework
for residential construction. Additional research in regard to actual structural
performance and benchmarking of acceptable target reliabilities for residential
construction is needed.
REFERENCES

AF&PA, Wood Frame Construction Manual (ANSI/AF&PA WFCM-2001), American

Forest and Paper Association, Washington, DC. 2001.
ANSI A58.1, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American
National Standards Institute, New York, NY. 1972 and 1982.
ARA, Development of Loss Relativities for Wind Resistive Features of Residential
Structures, Applied Research Associates, Raleigh, NC. March 2002.
ARA, Analysis of Cost and Loss Reduction Benefits of Windborne Debris Protection
- North Carolina Coast Exposure C Locations, Applied Research Associates,
Raleigh, NC. March 2002.
ASA A58.1, Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads, American
Standards Association, New York, NY. 1945 and 1955.
ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE Standard
7-02), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. 2003.
ASTM, Standard Specification for Performance of Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls,
Doors and Storm Shutters Impacted by Windborne Debris in Hurricanes (ASTM E
1996-02), American Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohoken, PA. 2002.
Beason, W. L., Meyers, G.E., and James, R. W., "Hurricane Related Window Glass
Damage in Houston," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 12, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. December 1984.
BOCA, National Building Code, Building Officials and Code Administrators, Inc.,
Country Club Hills, IL. 1996.
CABO, One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code, Council of American Building
Officials, Falls Church, VA. 1995.
Chalk, P.L. and Corotis, R. B., "Probability Model for Design Live Loads," Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 106, No. ST10, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA. October 1980.
Corotis, R.B., Fox, R.R., and Harris, J.C., "Delphi Methods: Theory and Design Load
Applications," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 107, No. ST6, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. June 1981.
Clemson University, Enhanced Protection from Severe Wind Storms, Department of
Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. 2000.
CMHCa, "A Study of Rainscreen Concept Applied to Cladding Systems on Wood
Frame Walls," Technical Series 96-214, Research Highlights, Canada Mortgage
Housing Corporation, Ottawa, Canada. 1996.
CMHC, "Measured Pressure-Equalized Performance of a Brick Veneer/Steel Stud
Assembly," Technical Series 00-101, Research Highlights, Canada Mortgage
Housing Corporation, Ottawa, Canada. 2000.

33
34 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

CMHC, "Measured Pressure-Equalized Performance of an Exterior Insulated Finish

System (EIFS) Specimen," Technical Series 00-119, Research Highlights," Canada
Mortgage Housing Corporation, Ottawa, Canada. 2000.
CMHC, "Measured Pressure-Equalized Performance of Two Pre-Cast Concrete
Panels," Technical Series 00-100, Research Highlights, Canada Mortgage Housing
Corporation, Ottawa, Canada. 2000.
CMHC, "A Study of the Mean Pressure Gradients, Mean Cavity Pressures, and
Resulting Residual mean Pressures Across a Rainscreen for a Representative
Building," Technical Series 96-207, Research Highlights, Canada Mortgage Housing
Corporation, Ottawa, Canada. 1996. (study conducted at University of Western
Ontario Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel).
CMHC, "Optimum Vent Locations for Partially-Pressurized Rainscreens," Technical
Series 97-105, Research Highlights, Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation, Ottawa,
Canada. 1997.
Crandell, J.H. and McKee, S.P, "Performance of wood-frame housing in Hurricane
Andrew and an evaluation of roof component reliability in typical U.S. wind
climates," Wind Safety and Performance of Buildings, Eds. Greg C. Foliente and Bo
Kasal, Forest Products Society, Madison, WI. 2000.
Crandell, J. H., and Kochkin, V. "Common Engineering Issues in Conventional
Construction," Wood Design Focus, Vol. 13, No. 3, Forest Products Society,
Madison WI. Fall 2003.
Crandell, J.H. et al., "Near-Ground Wind and Its Characterization for Engineering
Purposes," Wind & Structures, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp 143-158, 2000.
Ellingwood, B., et al., "Probability Based Load Criteria: Load Factors and Load
Combinations," Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 108, No. ST5, Am. Soc. Of
Civil Engrs., New York, NY. May 1982.
Ellingwood, B., and Culver, C., "Analysis of Live Loads in Office Buildings,"
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. ST8, Proc. Paper 13109,
Aug., 1977, pp. 1551-1560.
Ellingwood, B. and Redfield, R., "Ground Snow Loads for Structural Design,"
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 4, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA. April 1983.
Ellingwood, B. and Tekie, P., Wind Load Statistics for Probability-Based Structural
Design. Dept. of Civil Eng., Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, MD. 1997.
FHA, Minimum Property Standards for One and Two Living Units, FHA No. 300,
Federal Housing Administration, Washington, DC, November 1, 1958.
Galambos, T.V., et al.,"Probability Based Load Criteria: Assessment of Current
Design Practice," Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 108, No. ST5, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. May 1982.
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 35

Gurley, A., Kiesling, E., and Letchford, C., "Shielding Effects on a Manufactured
Home," Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Wind Engineering,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. 2003.
Harris, M.E., Corotis, R.B., Bova, C.J., "Area-Dependent Processes for Structural
Live Loads," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 107, No. ST5, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. May 1981.
HEW, Light Frame House Construction, Vocational Division Bulletin No. 145, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, DC, 1931 (reprinted
1956).
Ho, T. C. E., Variability of Low Building Loads, PhD Thesis, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. 1992.
HUD, Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Washington, DC. 2001.
HUD, Assessment of Damage to Single-Family Homes Caused by Hurricanes
Andrew and MM, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC. 1993.
HUD, Monitoring of Near-Ground Wind in a Built-up Suburban Environment. U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC. 1998.
HUD, Reliability of Conventional Residential Construction: An Assessment of Roof
Component Performance in Hurricane Andrew and Typical Wind Regions of the
United States. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington,
DC. 1999.
HUD, Residential Structural Design Guide, 2000 Edition, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC. February 2000.
HUDb, Review of Structural Materials and Methods for Home Building in the United
States: 1900-2000, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC, January 25, 2001.
HUDa, Structural Design Loads for One- and Two-Family Dwellings, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, May 2001.
HUD, Whole Structure Testing and Analysis of a Light-Frame Wood Building (Three
Reports), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC.
2001.
HUD, Wind-borne Debris Impact Resistance of Residential Glazing, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC. 2002.
ICBO, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials,
Whittier, CA. 1997.
ICC, International Residential Code (IRC), International Code Council, Inc., Falls
Church, VA, 2000 and 2003.
ICC, International Building Code (IBC), Code Council, Inc., Falls Church, VA, 2000
and 2003.
36 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

Kareem, A. "Performance of Cladding in Hurricane Alicia," Journal of Structural

Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 12, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
December 1986.
Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards and Interpretive Bulletins to
the Standards (24 CFR Ch. XX), Part 3280,4-1-99 Edition.
NAHB-RC, Assessment of Damage to Homes Caused by Hurricane Opal, NAHB
Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD. 1996.
NAHB-RC, Housing Performance Assessment Report: F4 La Plata Tornado of April
28, 2002, NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD. 2002.
NBS, "Building Code Requirements for New Dwelling Construction," Building
Materials and Structures Report BMS107, U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards, US GPO, Washington, DC, 1946.
NBS, "Strength of Houses: Application of Engineering Principles to Structural
Design," Building Materials and Structures Report BMS109, U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, US GPO, Washington, DC, 1948.
NBS, "Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National
Standard Committee A58," NBS SP-577, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
DC. June 1980.
NFPA 5000 Building Code, National Fire Protection Association, 2002.
NFPA, Standard on Manufactured Housing (NFPA 501), 2000 Edition, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2000.
NIST, An Industry Perspective on Performance Guidelines for Structural Safety and
Serviceability of One- and Two-Family Dwellings, prepared for the National Institute
for Standards and Technology (NIST) by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper
Marlboro, MD, March 1999.
O'Rourke, M., Koch, P., and Redfleld, R., Analysis of Roof Snow Load Case Studies
Uniform Loads, CRREL Report 83-1, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. 1983.
Peir, J-C and Cornell, C. A., "Spatial and Temporal Variability of Live Loads,"
Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 99, No. ST5, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA. May 1973.
Peterka, J. A., et al., "Wind Uplift Model for Asphalt Shingles," Journal of
Architectural Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA. December 1997.
Rosowsky, D. V., Studies on Probability-Based Design for Residential Construction,
prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC.
December 2001.
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 37

St. Pierre, L.M., Galsworthy, J.K., McKinnon, R., and Harriett, P.M., "Wind Loads
on Houses, A Wind Tunnel Study," ICLR Research Paper Series - No. 32, Institute
for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada.
July 17, 2003.
TenWolde, A., Carll, C.G., and Malinauskas, V., "Air Pressures in Wood Frame
Walls," Thermal Envelopes VII, Clearwater Beach, FL, December 6-10, 1998.
TPI 1-2002, National Design Standard for Metal Plate Connected Wood Truss
Construction, Truss Plate Institute, Madison, WL 2002.
Twisdale, L. A. and Vickery, P. J., "The Classification of Single-Family Residential
Buildings for Hurricane Damage and Loss," Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Wind Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. 2003.
University of Alberta, Thin Wall Foundation Testing, prepared for Alberta Municipal
Affairs by Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
March 1992.
Wind Loads for Housing, Australian Standard AS 4055-1992, Standards Australia, 1
The Crescent, Homebush, NSW 2140.
Young, M. A. and Twisdale, L. A., "Wind-Borne Debris Protection - A Cost-Benefit
Analysis," Proceedings of the I I 1 International Conference on Wind Engineering,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. 2003.
 APPENDIX A - Structural Design Data As Excerpted From
Appendix A of Minimum Property Standards (FHA, 1958)

Appendix A

structural design data

CONTENTS
Paragraph Page Paragraph page
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 247 Design Deflections, , D 249
Design Dead Loads B 247 allowabledesginsiressses e 249
Design Live Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . C 247 Masonry Construction , , . . E-l 249
Floor Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2 248 Reinforced Concrete C o n s t r u c t i o n . . . . 1-2 249
L o a d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3 248 Steel C o n s t r u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . E-3 249
Design Wind Loads C-4 248 Wood Construction . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 249
Earthquake L o a d s . , , . . , . . . . . C-5 248
Combined Loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6 248

A B b design dead loads

A-l The of this is to provide 1-1Deadloadsincalculationsof

structural for use in of actual of all materials making up the con-
structural not covered by or differing struction including walls, roofs, par-
from conventional construction as set forth in the titions, stairways and equipment.
Minimum Property Standards. B-2 Where a choice of finishing or covering mate-
terial is possible, design dead load shall be based
A-2 The structure, including the component parts,
upon the material.
sufficient strength and rigidity to support
the design load arid to resist deformation without
exceeding the allowable design stress or deflection C C DESIGN LIVE LOADSLIVE
provided herein,
A-3 The and rigidity of individual mem- C-l Design live of the weight of
all moving and that be
or be by a qualified
in the building, including on
or in accordance with loads 011 roofs and ceilings and wind, snow
engineering analysis Wengineering analysis Where assemhere assem earthquake loads which may act upon the structure,
or of construction are of blies or of construction are of naturenature either singly or in combination with other dead
the rigidity and other can- live loads.
not be determined by analysis, properties shall Note; The live are
be determined by suitable tests. may not local building requirements.

38
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 39

C-2 FLOIOR LOADS (4) Partitions, 15 psf.

Design live floor loads shall be not less than the uni- (5) Roofs:
formly distributed loads shown in Table I. (a) Design to withstand pressure acting out-
ward normal to the surface, equal to 1*4 times
TABLE the wind load,
Floor Loads
(b) Roofs with slopes greater than 6 in 12
Location Live load shall be designed to withstand pressures act-
(psf)1
ing inward normal to the surface, equal to
the design wind load,
Dwelling rooms (other than sleeping quarters) 40
Dwelling rooms (sleeping quarters onlv) 30 b. Roof framing shall be adequately secured to
Attics (served by permanent or disappearing stair) _ _ 30 walls orjiolumns to design wind loads,
Attics (limited storage roof slope over 3 in 12) 20 Walls and columns shall be anchored to founda-
2
Attics (without storage roof slope 3 in 12 or less).. 15 tions to uplift, overturning or displacement
Stairs . -- 60
unless calculations are provided which indicate
Public stairs and corridors (two family dwellings)., 60
Gftrages and carports (passenger cars) *100 that the overturning moment due to wind forces
is less than % the moment of stability of the
! Design live toad on any member supporting ISO square toot or more may be structure clue to dead load only.
reduced at the rate of 0.08% per square foot of area supported by the member.
* Wood Joists span tables tor these live loads In combination with average
c. In areas where extreme winds occur (80 psf or
dead loads are contained Sn Appendix B, higher) higher design wind loads than those shown
»Minimum combined live plus average dead load,
* Consideration must he gi¥en to effect of concentrated wheel loads on floor. above will be required to prevent overstressing
members. See ASA. A58.1 "Minimum Design
C-3 ROOF LOADS Loads in Buildings and Other Structures",
Design live roof loads shall not be less than the
uniformly distributed loads shown in Table II, C-5 EARTHOUAKE LOADS

TABLE II
a. Where earthquake design is required, the struc-
Roof loeds and all component parts shall be to
resist horizontal forces resulting therefrom,
Roof slope Live load
(psf)! b. The minimum lateral force at each floor or roof
level shall be assumed to be a static force equal
Slope 3 in 12orl ess: to 10 percent of the dead load at or above such
Minimum load 2 3
20 floor or roof for structures less than 35 in
Roof used as deck 40 height and 15 percent of the dead load if height
Slope over 3 in 12; Minimum load 2 8
15 is over 35 feet.
i Actual measured along of roof,
c. Parapet, walls shall be designed to resist a lat-
s Where unusual snow or wind conditions occur, higher design loads may be eral force equal to 100 percent of their weight.
required to prevent ova-stressing members. See ASA A58.1 "Minimum Design
Loads In Buildings and Other Structures".
» Wood joist and rafter span tables tor these live loads in combination with
average dead are contained In Appendix B. C-6 COMBINED LOADS

C-4 DESIGN WIN LOADES a. All structural members and connections shall
be designed for the combined effect of horizontal
a. Design live loads for wind shall not be less than and vertical loads. It may be assumed that wind
those shown below. Loads are assumed to act
and earthquake loads will not occur simultaneously.
horizontally on the gross area of the vertical
projections of the structure except as noted for b. Members and connections subject to either
roof wind or earthquake forces may be designed on
the basis of increased unit 33% percent
(1) Buildings (for overturning or racking), 20 greater, than the basic allowable design stresses,
psf.
provided that the member or connection so de-
(2) Chimneys, 30 pst signed is not less than that required for other
(3) Exterior walls, 20 psf. acting inward or combined dead and live loads computed without
outward. increased stresses.
 40 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

1-3 STEEL CONSTRUCTION

D DESIGN DEFLECTIONS
a. Design for be in
D-1 Design deflections of structural members when accordance with "Specifications for the Design,
subjected to total loads of live specified herein Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for
actual not the follow- Buildings", June 1949 Bevision, published by the
ing; American Institute of Steel Construction,
a. Floor joists; and girders, and ridge b. for light cold-formed
supporting roof joists, %6o of the clear span of shall be in accordance with
the member up to 15 Over-15 feet, deflection "Specification for the of Light Cold-
shall not exceed 14 inch, Formed Members", 1956
by the American Iron and Steel Insti-
b. Ceiling joists and low-slope roof joists, i^o of
tute,
the clear span of the member up to 15 feet. Over
15 feet, deflection shall not exceed % inch. 1-4 WOOD CONSTRUCTION
c. Rafters, y iso of the clear span of the member
a. Design for lumber, both
up to 15 feet. Over 15 feet, deflection shall not non-stress grade, be in with
1 inch, Table III,
D-2 The design set forth herein haveD-2 The design set forth herein have b. The allowable for
on the basis of reducing vibration lumber shown in Table III were determined in
on floors or that which will not be visually objec- acMethods for Establishing structral grades ofcordance with D245-57T, "Tentative
tionable on ceilings and roofs, These deflections will fMethods for Establishing structral grades for ofMethods for Establishing structral grades ofor of
not prevent cracking of plaster. Where greater Lumber'5, using the provided for
rigidity is or where it is desired to reduce and taking account sizes, of
grading for The allowable de-
the possibilty of plaster cracking, smaller design
fsign stresses for graded lumber wereor graded lumber
deflections should be
similarly on the of in
with ASTM D 245-57T,
to be no critical than the
of knots,
I ALLOWABLE DESIGN STRESSESA c. The shown in Table III are for
MASONRY CONSTRUCTION normal time conditions, usually as-
E-l sociated with'housing construction, are ap-
Design for masonry shall be in accord- proximately 10 percent than design
ance ASA A41.1— "American Standard for full load permanently applied. When the
Building Code for Masonry". minimum live loads in Section C,
Tables I and II, are used, no further increase in
for short time loading shall be used,
f-2 REINFORCED CONCRETE CONTRUCTION d. Where for lumber
Design for reinforced concrete shall be are the lumber be identified by the
of an association or in-
in accordance with ACI-318-565 "Building Code Re-
spection agency recognized by the American Lum-
for Eeinforced Concrete", published by ber Standards Committee, Washington, D. C. to
the American Concrete Institute. the
 APPENDIX B - Simplified ASCE 7-02
Wind Loads For Typical Low-Rise Buildings
January 31,2004

A.I General. This appendix provides A3.2 Wind Exposure and

simplified wind loads that result in Topography. The provisions of this
designs reasonably consistent with the Appendix are based on wind exposure
requirements ASCE 7. It is intended category B (suburban, urban, or
for use by qualified design wooded terrain) as defined in ASCE 7.
professionals and is subject to the For buildings located in wind exposure
limitations of Section A.2. In this category C (open or coastal terrain),
method, a single wind pressure for each tabulated exposure B wind loads shall
roof and wall vertical projected area be increased by a factor 1.4 (see table
and the roof horizontal projected area is footnotes as applicable in Section A4).
used to determine main wind force Buildings sited within 10 building
resisting system loads. For components heights from the top edge of a
and cladding loads, surface pressures prominent topographic feature shall be
are determined for specific building designed in accordance with ASCE 7.
elements such that multiple pressure A prominent topographic feature has a
zones are not required to be separately ground slope of greater than 15 percent
evaluated. and a vertical rise of greater than 50
A.2 Limitations. These provisions are feet, and is separated from features of
applicable to buildings meeting the similar or greater height by a distance
following conditions: of more than approximately 100 times
the height of the topographic feature.
• Light-frame, concrete, or
A3.3 Wind-borne Debris Region.
masonry construction using
The wind-borne debris region shall be
shear walls and horizontal
defined in accordance with the Figure
diaphragms to resist lateral
Al for Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
loads.
Mexico coastal areas as follows:
• Mean roof height of 40 feet or
Basic Wind Speed > 120 mph - all
less.
areas.
• One- and two-family dwellings, 110 mph < Basic Wind Speed < 120
apartments, commercial mph - all areas within 1 mile of
buildings, and other building coastline.
uses or occupancies with a wind A3.4 Building Enclosure Condition
load importance factor of 1.0. Building enclosure condition shall be
A.3 Wind Design Criteria classified in accordance with Table Al
for the purpose of determining wind
A.3.1 Basic Wind Speed
loads in accordance with Section A4.2
The basic (design) wind speed shall be
and A4.3.
determined in accordance with Figure
Al or as required by the local A3.5 Counteracting Dead Load
governing building code. When dead load is used to counteract

41
42 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

effects of wind pressure, it shall be A4.2 Roof System Uplift Loads. Wind
factored as follows for Allowable pressures from Table A3 shall be
Strength Design (ASD) and Load and applied to the horizontal projected area
Resistance Factor or Strength Design (HPA) of a roof system to determine
(LRFD) methods: uplift loads tributary to structural
ASD: W - 0.6D elements, assemblies, and connections
that experience loads from multiple
LRFD: 1.6W-0.9D roof surfaces.
where W is wind load effect due to A4.3 Components and Cladding
wind loads determined in Loads. Table A4 shall be used to
accordance with Section A4 and D determine inward (positive) and
is dead load effect due to estimated outward (negative) acting wind loads
actual dead load. Load effects tributary to wall and roof components,
include stresses in or forces applied cladding, and related connections.
to structural members, connections, Design wind pressures shall be applied
or systems. perpendicular to the tributary area of
Other load combinations and design the component, cladding, or connection
load effects shall be considered in under consideration.
accordance with ASCE 7, Chapter 2.
A.4 Wind Loads
A4.1 Lateral Force Resisting System
Loads. Wind pressures from Table A2
shall be applied to building roof and
wall vertical projected areas (VPA)
corresponding to each of four
elevations of the building to determine
maximum lateral wind forces (shear)
tributary to horizontal diaphragms,
shear walls, and related connections.
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 43

Figure Bl
Basic Gust Wind Speed (Gust), MPH

Table Bl
Classification of Building Enclosure Condition

Partially-Enclosed Building Enclosed Building

Buildings meeting one of the following: All buildings not classified as 'partially
enclosed' including:
• All buildings with intentional
openings in the exterior envelop • Buildings not within the wind-
exceeding the lesser of 4 ft2 or 1 borne debris region, and
percent of the total projected wall
• Buildings within the wind-borne
or roof area on any building side,
debris region with glazing
or
protection or impact resistant
• Buildings within the wind-borne glazing in accordance with ASCE 7
debris region with conventional or the local governing building
exterior glazing (unprotected from code.
debris impact) exceeding the above
opening amounts
44 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

Table Bl Notes:
1. Building enclosure condition affects internal pressures experienced within the
building. Because internal pressure acts inward or outward on all exterior
building surfaces simultaneously, the net effect on lateral building loads is zero.
Therefore, building enclosure condition does not affect determination of lateral
building loads in Section A4.1.
2. Open buildings are not addressed; refer to ASCE 7 for appropriate wind loads.
Open buildings have openings in each wall which exceed 80 percent of the wall
area.
TABLE B2
Lateral Wind Loads for Application
to Vertical Projected Wall and Roof Area
[Exposure B, Mean Roof Height 30 feet]
Design Wind Pressure (psf)
For Roof VPA For Wall VPA
Basic
by Roof Slope by Roof Slope
Wind Speed
(mph) <20° 25° >30° <10° 20° >30°
(4:12) (5.6:12) (7:12) (2:12) (4:12) (7:12)
85 0 2.4 7.7 10.2 12.5 11.2
90 0 2.7 8.6 11.4 14.0 12.6
100 0 3.3 10.7 14.0 17.3 15.5
110 0 4.0 12.9 17.0 20.9 18.8
120 0 4.8 15.4 20.2 25.3 22.4
130 0 5.6 18.0 23.7 29.2 26.3
140 0 6.5 20.9 27.5 33.6 30.5
150 0 7.4 24.0 31.6 38.9 35.0
Table B2 Notes:
1. Table applies to wind exposure category B (urban, suburban, or wooded
terrain). For exposure category C (open or coastal exposure), multiply table
values by 1.4.
2. Table applies to a mean roof height of 30 feet. For other mean roof heights
from 15 feet to 40 feet, multiply table values by the following factor: 4 =
0.0087 (h) + 0.74 where h is the mean roof height in feet.
3. Interpolation between reported wind speeds and roof slopes shall be
permitted. For roof slopes greater than 45° (12:12), use wall VPA value.
4. Extrapolation to wind speeds other than shown shall be permitted by
multiplying tabulated values by the ratio of squared wind speeds. For
example, a wall VPA pressure of 20.9 psf at 110 mph from the table can be
used to determine a pressure for a 170 mph wind speed by multiplying as
follows: (20.9 psf) x (170/110)2 = 49.9 psf.
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 45

TABLE B3
Wind Uplift Loads for Application
to Roof System Horizontal Projected Area
[Exposure B, Mean Roof Height 30 feet]

Roof Uplift Pressure (psf) by

Building Enclosure Condition and Overhang Uplift
Roof Slope Pressure (psf)
Basic
by Roof Slope
Wind Speed
Partially-Enclosed Enclosed
(mph)
<20° >25° <20° >25° <20° >25°
(4:12) (5.6:12) (4:12) (5.6:12) (4:12) (5.6:12)

85 17 11 13 8 19 12
90 19 13 14 9 21 13
100 23 16 17 11 26 17
110 28 19 21 13 32 20
120 33 23 25 16 38 24
130 39 27 29 18 45 28
140 45 31 34 21 52 32
150 52 35 39 24 60 37

Table B3 Notes:
1. Table applies to wind exposure category B (urban, suburban, or wooded
terrain). For exposure category C (open or coastal exposure), multiply table
values by 1.4.
2. Table applies to a mean roof height of 30 feet. For other mean roof heights
from 15 feet to 40 feet, multiply table values by the following factor:
fh = 0.0087 (h) + 0.74 where h is the mean roof height in feet.
3. For hip roofs, multiply roof uplift pressure by 0.9 for roof slope less than 25°
(5.6:12) and 0.8 for roof slope greater than 25° (5.6:12). This adjustment does
not apply to overhangs on hip roofs.
4. Apply roof uplift pressure to horizontal projected area bounded by exterior
walls. Apply overhang uplift pressure to horizontal projected area of
overhangs projecting outward from exterior walls.
5. Interpolation for roof slopes between 20° (4:12) and 25° (5.6:12) and reported
wind speeds shall be permitted.
6. Extrapolation of tabulated pressures to wind speeds other than shown shall be
done in accordance with note 4 of Table A2.
 TABLE B4
Design Wind Pressures (psf)
For Components and Cladding
[Enclosed Building, Exposure B, Mean Roof Height 30 feet]
85mph 90mph 100 mph 110 mph
Component
Inward Outward Inward Outward Inward Outward Inward Outward
Roof Components
Roof Framing 12 -12 13 -13 17 -17 20 -20
Roof Sheathing, Purlins, etc. 12 -18 13 -20 17 -25 20 -30
Roof Skylights, Glazing, etc. 12 -18 13 -20 17 -25 20 -30
Roofing (non-air permeable)6 12 -21 13 -23 17 -29 20 -35
Roof Overhang (framing only)7 12 -24 13 -27 17 -33 n/a -40
Wall Components
Wall Framing 12 -12 13 -13 17 -17 20 -20
Wall Sheathing (panels, boards, girts) 12 -18 13 -20 17 -25 20 -30
Windows, Doors, Glazing 12 -18 13 -20 17 -25 20 -30
Garage Doors 12 -12 13 -13 17 -17 20 -20
Siding (non-air permeable)6 12 | -18 13 | -20 17 | -25 20 | -30
120 mph 130 mph 140 mph 150 mph
Component
Inward Outward Inward Outward Inward Outward Inward Outward
Roof Components
Roof Framing 24 -24 27 -27 32 -32 37 -37
Roof Sheathing, Purlins, etc. 24 -36 27 -42 32 -49 . 37 -56
Roof Skylights, Glazing, etc. 24 -36 27 -42 32 -49 37 -56
Roofing (non-air permeable)5 24 -42 27 -49 32 -57 37 -65
Roof Overhang (framing only)6 n/a -48 n/a ^56 n/a ^65 n/a -74
Wall Components
Wall Framing 24 -24 27 -27 32 -32 37 -37
Wall Sheathing (panels, boards, girts) 24 -36 27 -42 32 -49 37 -56
Windows, Doors, Glazing 24 -36 27 -42 32 -49 37 -56
Garage Doors 24 -24 27 -27 32 -32 37 -37
Siding (non-air permeable)5 | 24 | -36 | 27 | -42 | 32 | -49 | 37 | -56
 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS 47

Table B4 Notes:
1. Table applies to wind exposure category B (urban, suburban, or wooded terrain).
For exposure category C (open or coastal exposure), multiply table values by 1.4.
2. Table applies to enclosed buildings. For partially-enclosed buildings, multiply
table values by 1.25.
3. Table applies to a mean roof height of 30 feet or less. For mean roof heights
greater than 30 feet and not exceeding 40 feet, multiply table values by the
following factor: fh = 0.0087 (h) + 0.74 where h is the mean roof height in feet.
4. Interpolation between reported wind speeds shall be permitted. Extrapolation of
tabulated pressures to wind speeds other than shown shall be done in accordance
with note 4 of Table A2.
5. Non-air permeable claddings (siding and roofing) do not allow venting of air
either through the siding or through cavities behind the cladding that lead to vent
openings on the same face of the building. Most claddings are air-permeable to
some degree and provide some reduction in wind load, provided the supporting
wall behind the cladding is relatively non-air permeable. For vinyl cladding,
ASTM Standard D3679 permits a 50 percent reduction in wind load for this
reason. Similarly, claddings such as brick veneer (with weeps and vent space)
and hardboard lap siding have been reported to experience cladding wind load
reductions of 30 percent or more. Wind loads on roofing, such as asphalt shingles,
have been reported to experience wind load reductions of as much as 25 percent.
Refer to the cladding manufacturer for an appropriate air-permeable cladding
reduction factor to use. Consideration should also be given to the dynamic nature
of wind pressures (e.g., fluttering) and its potential effect (e.g., fatigue) on some
cladding systems and related connections.
6. Roof overhang pressure includes pressure from underside of the overhang as well
as on the upper surface. If an "open soffit" is used, the roof overhang pressure
should also apply to the roof sheathing (if sheathed) or the roofing (if not
sheathed underneath).
References: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE
7-02, ASCE, Reston, VA. 2002.
Structural Loads for One- and Two-Family Dwellings, U.S. Dept. of
Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC. 2001.
This page intentionally left blank
 Index
aerodynamic studies 26 engineering principles 8
air-permeable cladding 24-25, 32 exposure analysis, site specific 19
allowable stress design 40 exposure conditions 22; wind 19, 32
ASCE 7 1, 6, 7, 8, 18,19, 21,29
assembly weight 10 Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 5
attic live loads 12-14,31 fenestration 10
attic storage loads 12-14 flood loads 7
attic use study 14 floor area 4
Australian Wind Code for Housing 17 floor live loads 5,15,31,39
Florida 21
backfilling practices 27 foundation walls 27—28
basic wind speed 41 full-scale studies 25
boundary layer 16
Building Code Requirements for New gravity load design 3
Dwelling Construction 5
building design load regulations, hardboard siding 24
development of 6-7 horizontal loads 39
building enclosure classification 41, housing, performance expectations 29
43^4 housing market 29
HUD-code dwellings 2, 29-30
cladding 18,42 hurricane damage risk models 22
clay soil 27 hurricane-prone regions 28
Code of 'Federal Regulations (CFR) 6 hurricanes 21
combined loads 39
compression loads 5 ice loads 7
construction materials 10 insurance rates 23
construction practices 8 interfacial layer 16
Council of American Building Officials International Building Code (ICC) 1
(CABO) 6,7,28 International Residential Code (IRC) 7,13, 28

dead loads 4, 38; actual 9, 31; nominal lateral bracing 4

9,31 lateral force resistance 42
deflections 40 lateral resistance 10,11
Department of Housing and Urban lateral soil loads 27-28, 32
Development (HUD) 5 lateral wind loads 44
design, cost of 8 live loads 4, 38-39; reduction 6,14-15
design loads 38-^0; simplification of 28- low-rise buildings, wind loads 41^7
29,32
design wind pressures, components and maintenance 10-11; roofs 11-12
cladding 46 manufactured housing units 2, 6
displacement height 16 masonry construction 40
door assemblies 10 material standards 24
drag 17; reduction 18 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
drift snow loads 26-27,32 Other Structures. See ASCE 7
Minimum Property Standards 5, 8, 11
earthquake loads 3, 7, 39 multi-story live loads 14-15,31
earthquake regions 28 National Bureau of Standards (NBS) 4,5

49
50 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOADS

National Institute of Standards and tornadoes 22

Technology (NIST) 4 transverse loads 5
National Manufactured Housing turbulence 17-18
Construction and Safety Standards Act of
1974 6 Uniform Building Code (UBC) 6
non-structural elements, as bracing 2-3 uplift, reduction 18
North Carolina 23 uplift loads 42,45

one- and two-family dwellings 2; vertical loads 39

construction 15,31 vertical uplift 18
vinyl siding 24,25
partition wall weight 3,10-11,31
wall components, design wind pressures
racking loads 5 wind borne debris 21-24, 32,41
reinforced concrete construction 40 wind damage surveys 21
remodeling 10-11 wind exposure 15
repair, roofs 11-12 wind exposure categories 44-47
residential floor plans 11 wind flow, obstructions to 16
residential foundation soil pressures 27-28 wind loading 4, 6,12, 39
residential occupancy 15, 31 wind maps 5, 7
roof assemblies 10 wind shielding 15-16, 31-32; effects of 16-18
roof components, design wind pressures wind speeds 16,41
roof live loads 11-12,31,39 wind tunnel experiments 17
roof shingle loads 25 wind uplift 17
roof to wall connection force 18 wind velocity pressure 5
roof trusses 13 wind velocity profile 16
roofs, as decks 11 wind-resistant building features 22-23
wood construction 40
Sears and Roebuck standard built kit wood truss 18
homes 29 wood truss design standard 13
seismic load analysis 10-11,31 wooded exposure conditions, wind 19-20, 32
siding, air-permeable 24—25
snow load maps 5, 7
snow loads 5,12, 26-27, 32; lateral 27
snow transport process 26
soil pressure 27, 32
soils, equivalent fluid density 27
steel construction 40
Structural Design Loads for One- and
Two-Family Dwellings 8,14
structural load provisions 3
structural members, loads 40
structural system behavior 2
structures, types of 2
suburban exposure conditions 22; wind
19-20,32
surface roughness 19

target reliability 30, 32

terrain conditions 19
topography 41