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

Re: Exposure D Wind

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
At 06:51 AM 06/07/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Any wind guys or gals out there??
>
>I just noticed that the 2000 IBC specifically includes Exposure D wind
>category to the West Coast.  The 1997 UBC specifically excludes Exposure D
>for areas with basic wind speeds less than 80 mph (fastest mile) which
>includes central and southern California.  Does anyone know the background
>to this?  Looks like all structures 1500 feet from the Pacific Coast will
>need to be designed for higher wind loads.
>
>Thomas Hunt
>Duke/Fluor Daniel
-----------------------
Former wind guy here-- when 1970's ANSI wind stuff was being "simplified" by
a SEAOC committee for inclusion in 1982 UBC.

Now, it should be evident from all the anguished code change-related
postings on this list, and from the explanatory answers tendered by those
who pulled the strings, that we all fall into two broad categories. Most of
us are like sheep, and a few of us are like sheepherders.

There are rude, off-color stories, old ones indeed, about what sheep are
subjected to by sheepherders. That's like how it is in modern codework. The
sheepherders are in charge of what happens. Only occasionally do they take
an interest (for free, that is) in whether the sheep understand what is
happening to them. They hardly ever care whether the sheep like it.  

When we are sheep, we can only speculate about what is happening and why. As
for the need for an exposure D wind load on the California coast, "where are
the bodies?" Lacking practical necessity for exposure D, perhaps it was only
some code advocate's desire for order and symmetry in regulatory texts that
motivated the change in question.

Returning to my livestock metaphor, recall George Orwell's Animal Farm
story. The farm critters evicted the human "sheepherder" and ran the place
themselves to reflect their own interests. Soon an elite class of animals,
the pigs, rose above them as leaders to better manage the affairs of
less-gifted, "less equal" members of that community. Before long all but the
pigs were back on the receiving end of arbitrary policies, policies made by
the elite among them for their own pleasure or advantage.

Charles O. Greenlaw  SE  Sacramento CA