Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Engineers involved with UBC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
At 02:44 PM 03/21/2000 EST, you wrote:
>Is there anyone on this list who is, or who knows of someone that is, 
>involved with the development of UBC, particularly on wind loads? Between 
>ASCE 7 and UBC, I find a major difference in wind pressure on side walls of a 
>building. In fact, UBC does not seem to address it at all.  I would like to 
>know the reason for the difference.
>
>P. Rajendran
>Service & Technology Corporation
>105 SW Penn
>Bartlesville, OK 74003
>Ph: 918 336 8161  FAX: 918 336 8265
------------------
Mark Anderson posted this reply (below) yesterday. I was involved with the
wind code formulation for the 1982 UBC also, and I agree with him. The UBC
makes every wall a windward and leeward wall in turn, and it was deemed that
analyzing as a side wall was non-controlling of design, and thus unnecessary
to do.

Why AISC 7 is different I do not know. Maybe AISC does not rely on seismic
code complexity as its basis for reputation and self-esteem, and makes up
for it with wind code complexity. A cynic might know, if you can find one.  

Charles Greenlaw SE  Sacramento CA

>I was involved in some of the proposals concerning the rewrite of this
>section for the 1982 UBC, and recall that we proposed the use of
>"non-windward" walls for "leeward" walls, but it didn't fly.  My
>understanding was that the prevailing point of view was that the issue was
>meant to be addressed by considering as many different wind directions as
>necessary to envelope all possible effects.  Wind loading of sidewalls
>was/is considered to be provided for by application of leeward wall effects.
>
>Mark D. Anderson
>