Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: ASCE 7-05 Wind

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I would tend to agree when you are discussing the issue of orthogonal buildings as the code no longer seems to accept a diagonal shear wall as part of a regular structure. This is going to P*ss off a lot of creative design professionals who want to do custom homes but who are used to introducing discontinuities and non-orthogonal (semi-circular) shear elements.
Dennis S. Wish, PE
California Professional Engineer
Structural Engineering Consultant

----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Polhemus <bill(--nospam--at)>
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:10:31 PM
Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05 Wind

Doug Mayer wrote:

First off, what is a “regular-shaped building”?  ASCE defines this as “a building or other structure having no unusual geometrical irregularity in spatial form.”  To me, this sounds like any non-rectangular structural is irregular.  Is this true?

Actually I think they mean "spatially" as in "in three-dimensions." The Sears Tower would be an example of an "irregularly shaped building," but the John Hancock Building (also in Chicago) is not even though it is non-prismatic.
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********