Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: MBMA Code and Wind Loads[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: MBMA Code and Wind Loads
- From: Ed.Haninger(--nospam--at)fluordaniel.com
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:56:00 -0500
For metal buildings I specify that the UBC be used for design. The 94 UBC is currently used for most building departments. I don't have to worry about MBMA and the building department accepts it. The 94 UBC is still the old "fastest mile" procedure, but it gives generally lower, but reasonable loads compared with the ASCE 7-95. Ed Haninger Fluor Daniel in "rainy" California ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: MBMA Code and Wind Loads Author: James_F_Fulton@rohmhaas.com_at_-FDInternet at FDINET Date: 02/16/1998 4:07 PM I would tend to agree that the source of wind load provisions in ASCE 7-95 is not MBMA. About 3 years ago I compared the wind loads on a metal building design determined using MBMA and ASCE 7 (either 93 or 88, doesn't matter here). The MBMA loads were much less. MBMB has some justification for this, but I am not sure what it is. Since wind loads for low rise buildings from ASCE 7-95 end up being not largely different from those determined from ASCE 7-93, I suspect that MBMA wind loads are still much less than the corresponding ASCE 7-95 values. In the process of this work, I was developing a metal bldg. spec, and I specified that the building was to be designed to 1993 BOCA Code, particularly in regards to wind loads. ......
- Prev by Subject: Re: MBMA Code and Wind Loads
- Next by Subject: RE: Re: MBMA Code and Wind Loads
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: MBMA Code and Wind Loads
- Next by thread: RE: Re: MBMA Code and Wind Loads