Comparing Loading Provisions Between ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16

The loading provisions were compared between the ASCE 7-10 standard and ASCE 7-16 standard. Two different structural models were considered: an office building with a flat roof located in Tempe and a community center with a gable roof located in Flagstaff. The following load types were considered: dead, live, wind, and snow loads. The only major changes between the standards were found in the wind load calculations. The winds loads were reduced by approximately 22% for the office building in Tempe and 37% for the community center in Flagstaff. A structural design was completed for the frame of the Flagstaff community building. There was a 19% reduction in cost from the design using ASCE 7-10 provisions compared to the design utilizing ASCE 7-16 provisions, leading to a saving of $7,599.17. The reduction in loading, and subsequently more cost-effective design, is attributed to the reduction in basic wind speed for the region and consideration of the ground elevation factor. The introduction of the new ASCE 7-16 standard was met with criticism, especially over the increase in specific coefficients in the wind load and seismic load chapters. Proponents of ASCE 7-16 boast that the new chapter on tsunami loads, new maps for various environmental loads, and a new electronic hazard are some of the merits of the newest standard. Others still question whether the complexity of the provisions is necessary and call for further improvements for the wind and seismic provisions. While tension exists in the desire for a simple standard, ASCE 7-16 prioritizes in having its provisions provide economical and reliable results. More consideration could be devoted to developing a more convenient standard for users. Regardless, engineering professionals should be able to adapt alongside newly developed practices and newly discovered data.