I also have worked with
Chris Rosencutter. He is a fairly decent engineer.
H. Daryl Richardson
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:55
Subject: RE: ASCE / IBC wind
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.
their latest wind program.
Neil Moore, SE,
neil moore and associates
At 11:04 AM
6/8/2006, Mark E. Deardorff wrote:
there any software products to assist in the determination of the ASCE wind
Mark E. Deardorff,
Burkett & Wong
San Diego, CA
Sent: Thursday, June 08,
2006 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: ASCE /
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
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
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:09
Subject: RE: ASCE / IBC
general i agree with you...
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.
Sent: Wednesday, June 07,
2006 5:16 PM
Subject: ASCE / IBC
Is there a simplified method of wind design for ASCE 7 and
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
Paul Feather PE, SE