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

Re: Exposure D Wind

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Thank you, Charles,

We recognize the problem, I think.

Many years ago (I can't believe I said that!), codes seemed to have had
some relationship to the real world, and were written as an aid to the
engineer.  Current codes seem to be *Downright Hostile* to the engineer ,
and tailored to the prosecuting attorney.  

Does anyone have a solution, short of anarchy or armed revolution?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident;...  that whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government...  in such form
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.",
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

This, I believe, should be the abiding principle.  Remember that the above
reference required armed revolution.

Fountain E. Conner, P.E.
Gulf Breeze, Fl. 32561

> From: Charles Greenlaw <cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)>
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject: Re: Exposure D Wind
> Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:45 AM
> 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
> >for areas with basic wind speeds less than 80 mph (fastest mile) which
> >includes central and southern California.  Does anyone know the
> >to this?  Looks like all structures 1500 feet from the Pacific Coast
> >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"
> 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
> 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.
> sheepherders are in charge of what happens. Only occasionally do they
> 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.
> for the need for an exposure D wind load on the California coast, "where
> the bodies?" Lacking practical necessity for exposure D, perhaps it was
> some code advocate's desire for order and symmetry in regulatory texts
> 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
> themselves to reflect their own interests. Soon an elite class of
> 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
> pigs were back on the receiving end of arbitrary policies, policies made
> the elite among them for their own pleasure or advantage.
> Charles O. Greenlaw  SE  Sacramento CA