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]
Check out Meca's windsoftware.   I've used a number of his other programs and have been please.  He also was our consultant for vortex shedding on all three of our 400 foot + flagpoles.

Wind05 is their latest wind program.


http://www.mecaenterprises.com/

Neil Moore, SE, SECB
neil moore and associates






At 11:04 AM 6/8/2006, Mark E. Deardorff wrote:
Are there any software products to assist in the determination of the ASCE wind loads?
 

Mark E. Deardorff, Structural Engineer
Burkett & Wong
San Diego, CA


From: Paul Feather [ mailto:PFeather(--nospam--at)se-solutions.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:55 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE / IBC wind
 
The building can still be truly simple, and not meet the limitations for section 6.4.
 
Have you ever worked with the UBC?  The wind loading for MWFRS is as simple as an applied pressure based on structure height, and it takes about three seconds to figure out what the applied loading needs to be.  We have done hurricane resistant structures this way, and yes they DID perform in the hurricane.
 
With ASCE figuring the pressures is about as complicated as it can be, and then there are 6 cases to be reviewed.  Since there are at least three load combinations with wind, you end up with 18 load combinations just for wind design.  (I know some of this can be discarded based on never being a limit state, but then why require the check in the first place.)
 
The fact is the ASCE procedure is trying to be too exact, and it isn?t warranted in most cases.  If you have a gable frame or similar sensitive structure, or a stadium roof or high-rise application with wind tunnel testing, I can see the need; but for the majority of the structures we design a simple UBC style approach has worked successfully for a long time.  Bump up the pressures slightly and apply it uniformly to the structure in the principle directions; add a minimum torsion if desired, and you could envelope 90% of these structures easily with superior performance.  Then maybe the designer could spend more time on proper detailing and load path rather than a thesis project just to develop the applied loads.
 
Maybe I?m just getting crotchety as time goes by.
 
Paul Feather PE, SE
pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
www.SE-Solutions.net
 

From: David Adie [ mailto:DavidA(--nospam--at)cplinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:09 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE / IBC wind
 
paul,
 
in general i agree with you...
 
if a structure truly is simple, it qualifies for the "simplified procedure" of asce 6.4 for both mwfrs and c&c.  that is a lot less painful than "analytical procedure" of asce 6.5.
 
da

From: Paul Feather [ mailto:PFeather(--nospam--at)se-solutions.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:16 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