Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ASCE / IBC wind

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I agree with you.
Richard Hess
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry H. Welliver [mailto:barrywelliver2(--nospam--at)earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:39 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE / IBC wind

Here in Utah we have been using the IBC since 2000. The complication in the wind load provisions does indeed seem unwarranted for some areas. I think we are of the same opinion with regard to the UBC and its “practicality” for nominal wind zones. We are looking into allowing its use (97 UBC) for wind design through our state rules as an alternate.

 

Going off on this tangent….

 

Is there a fascination with complexity of methodology which continues to grow in our profession?

 

I sometimes miss Frank Lew’s sobering “where are the bodies” reminder to think long and hard about what we say and do. If the actual benefit cannot be quantified as substantial, then why change the dang thing?

 

Barry H. Welliver

 


From: Paul Feather [mailto:PFeather(--nospam--at)se-solutions.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 6:16 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: ASCE / IBC wind

 

Is there a simplified method of wind design for ASCE 7 and IBC?

 

The UBC is (was) so much simpler to utilize without any loss of conservatism for most projects.  We should be able to develop a simple method of wind analysis without all the gymnastics for simple structures.

 

 

 

Paul Feather PE, SE

pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net

www.SE-Solutions.net