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

Re: WIND AND SEISMIC LOAD FOR STABLE AND BARNS

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I lost several jobs over the disagreement on the wind loads. 
 
In one case, it was a framed tent structure for a religious school/kindergarten.  The vendor was planning to build these structures all over SoCal. The analysis showed that neither the proposed framing nor the footings worked for 70 mph wind.  Moreover, they did not work for 35 mph wind either.  So, I suggested to use larger members/footings, and subsequently lost the job.  Guess what - I see these tents being erected at practically every corner.
 
The second one was the footings and posts for a 10-foot tall chain link fence, again - a religious school.  The client's plan was to plant vines to cover the fence in the future.  After I explained the wind load requirements of the code and the subsequent sizes of the posts and footings, the client chose to go with somebody else.  I often drive by that site - the fence and the vines are there.  I am glad my name and stamp are not.
 
Some projects you just don't hate to loose.
 
Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: WIND AND SEISMIC LOAD FOR STABLE AND BARNS

I would have thought the agriculture lobby would be more powerful in CA.
In Virginia agricultural buildings are exempt from the building code. I
get paid to tell them that they didn't build it for the anticipated
environmental loads when they fall down. Owners, typically countrified
city-folk, can be quite perplexed when they find out that there is no
oversight for such structures.

I agree with Paul. Unless you have reason to believe that there is very
little chance of humans being around in a code-level event, I would not
take the unoccupied reductions (Cat I). If more than three horses are
involved, or any horses kept for breeding purposes, I would definitely
consider it an occupied structure (Cat II), and possibly a "substantial
hazard" (Cat III).  Not that rich people are more valuable than the rest
of us, but their lawyers tend to pretend that is the case.  In addition,
significant value may be lost in an event, and there are generally no
evacuation considerations.

Jordan

Paul Feather wrote:

>There are provisions for agricultural buildings, but I would be careful.
>Many barns in So. Cal are bigger than houses and have people there
>constantly, especially horse barns where the value of the horses can be
>substantial.  I would apply the "unoccupied" provisions for agricultural
>buildings very judiciously.
>
>
>Paul Feather PE, SE
>www.SE-Solutions.net
>pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "DA" <dnae2(--nospam--at)sbcglobal.net>
>To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:13 AM
>Subject: WIND AND SEISMIC LOAD FOR STABLE AND BARNS

>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********