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]

Right now it’s more the latter. In fact, one of the complaints we have with ASCE 7 is that even the “low-rise” method does not account for shielding effects, near-ground reductions in wind loads, and other things that penalize most residential construction. Not to mention the minimum 10psf wind load requirement that makes you design some structures for wind *twice* (once for the analytical loads, once to check the minimum), and the mess that was made of the low-rise method figures in the last cycle (among other issues, they apparently generate roof uplift pressures in some places where they don’t make sense).

 

The committee is looking at fixing some of those problems this round. We can keep our fingers crossed.

 

Gary


From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:07 PM
To: William.N.Scott(--nospam--at)conocophillips.com; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05

 

Betcha there's not a lot of "little" people like Dennis and myself, who work alone and design houses (structures) under fairly intense time and economic pressure on those committees.  We don't have the time to serve on national committees.

IIRC about 30 years ago residential wind design for the most part consisted of applying 25 psf to the elevation and designing the resisting system from there.  Is the new, more complex methodology any "better" for small structures?  Or is it just forcing a complex system that may be applicable to large structures onto small structures (and their designers)? 

As someone so famously once asked:  "Where are the bodies?"

Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Richmond CA USA

In a message dated 10/22/07 8:55:26 AM, William.N.Scott(--nospam--at)conocophillips.com writes:

Actually, the committee is balanced between academic, practicing,
public, and industry people.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 7:00 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05


On Oct 22, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:

> 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.
I bet if you'd look at the committee membership, you'd see a high 
percentage of academic input. I sound like some kind of populist 
loonie, but I'm anything but. The problem is that too many academics 
have gone straight from grad school to teaching which is like 
quenching without tempering.engineers need to learn to express 
findings and instructions simply, precisely and unambiguously just as 
much as they need scientific rigor.

> We agreed to ignore it and use the UBC, I believe.  I wrote a 
> letter of complaint to ASCE and heard nothing back.
I bet you'd hear something back if you volunteered to serve on the 
committee.

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




**************************************
See what's new at http://www.aol.com