Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: ASCE 7-05

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Just my two sense, while working in a hurricane region.  While the
equations don't necessarily make much sense, they are fairly straight
forward to use.  Just plug them in an Excel spreadsheet, and get an
answer.  Once you have your spreadsheet set up, you only need to plug
and chug.
I am sure the East Coasters are not going to appreciate doing seismic
calcs in zone 1 or 2 for more complex soils.  But why not make better
use of knowledge, and get on with it.  Already our engineering is much
easier than what people had to face in the past.  We have multiple FEM
modules, and softwares ...  Just make use, and get on with it.

2007/10/23, Charles R. Ashley Jr. <charles(--nospam--at)advanceeng.net>:
> As engineers we tend to learn by failures.  After all, it was the 1994
> Northridge EQ that spurred major revisions to the seismic provisions in the
> 1997.
>
> So I have to ask....when is the last time a Type V building failed due to
> wind in California?  Anyone wake up in the morning and find a roof that
> doesn't below to you sitting in your front yard?
>
> I am trying to figure out what tragic wind event triggered these ridiculous
> revisions!  I am sure there must have been a bus load of innocent children
> involved, I just can't seem to find it.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: smaxwell(--nospam--at)umich.edu [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)umich.edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:35 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05
>
> While I do believe that there are a lot of engineers out there who are
> overly harsh on the various code/standard committees (it is rather easy
> to "backseat" drive or complain about stuff when you are not familiar
> with the process or the work that goes on and the difficulty in getting
> sometimes 50+ people to agree enough on something to produce a
> provision), I do believe that ASCE 7 has gotten a little out of hand
> with the wind provisions.  Having messed with the wind loads for signs
> recently, I can say that it is WAY to involved a process to get wind
> loads for a freakin' sign (it took me multiple hours to JUST get the
> wind pressure for the sign).
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
> Quoting "Garner, Robert" <rgarner(--nospam--at)moffattnichol.com>:
>
> >
> > ASCE has very successfully made wind design into rocket science.  Way to
> > go ASCE!
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. [mailto:ghodgson(--nospam--at)bellnet.ca]
> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 4:59 AM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05
> >
> > I will take back part of what I said.  The quality of engineering
> > drawings, particularly structural drawings from the US, are very good.
> > However when you read computer instructions, technical manuals, and
> > codes where they have been prepared by engineering organizations, they
> > usually leave something to be desired.  The trouble is that they know
> > all about  their subject but don't realize outsiders are starting from
> > scratch; they just assume everyone will know what they mean..  An
> > example is 1995 ASCE-I bought their Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
> > -- and after reading the seismic requirements three times I was totally
> > lost and thought the problem was me.  So I called a friend at a large
> > engineering company who was assistant head of the industrial department
> > and he said the ASCE seismic parts seem to go in circles.  We agreed to
> > ignore it and use the UBC, I believe.  I wrote a letter of complaint to
> > ASCE and heard nothing back.  If I am not mistaken, there have been a
> > lot of complaints recently about the ASCE wind load requirements.
> >
> > Christopher Wright wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 20, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:
> >>
> >>> Actually makes sense, as engineers are not known for their
> >>> communication ability
> >>> Gary
> >> Not the good ones. Engineering is discipline of communications--we
> >> don't (routinely) make things; we tell people who do how to makes
> >> things properly. That's what drawings and reports are all
> >> about--communicating instructions unambiguously to artisans (for lack
> >> of a better word) can give materials a specific usefulness. We don't
> >> do science or math; we use science and math to make sure the
> >> instructions we communicate are soundly based in physical principles.
> >>
> >> My own experience is that academics who teach engineering tend to lose
> >
> >> sight of the need for communications and organization--maybe out of
> >> desire for greater rigor in presentation or just a tendency to impress
> >
> >> the onlooker with technicalities. I know that's happened with the
> >> Pressure Vessel Codes. With the ASME Codes, I think the problem is
> >> that industry isn't supporting Code writng efforts like they once did,
> >
> >> and academia has necessarily moved in. I've always suspected (without
> >> an ounce of actual proof) that it's what happened when LRFD was
> >> introduced.
> >>
> >>
> >> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
> >> chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com   | this distance" (last words of Gen.
> >> .......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
> >> 1864)
> >> http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> >> *   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******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ******
> >> ****** ********
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   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
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
> > The information contained in the e-Mail, including any accompanying
> > documents or attachments, is from Moffatt & Nichol and is intended
> > only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is
> > privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient,
> > be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or
> > use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you
> > received this message in error, please notify us.
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   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
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********