Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: IBC 2007 Wind calcs.

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I don't disagree.  The current ASCE 7 methods are more complicated than what
was in the last few versions of the BOCA code...and those last few versions
of the BOCA code were more complicated than what has been in the 1997 UBC.
A lot of the added complexity that now appears in ASCE 7 compared to older
versions of ASCE 7/BOCA code do seem as overkill to me.

But, I will note that the UBC wind provisions were rather "dumbed down".
Note I don't say this to offend anyone, but it is a good simple way to put
it.  UBC provisions are VERY simplified versions of the basic intent of ASCE
7, which a to a large degree a crap load on conservatism in them.  And that
is likely why Stan is finding pressures that are less than what he is used
to...the UBC method is conservative, which means that it applies to more
situations without having to do much additional work.  A lot of the
"complexity" in the ASCE 7 is that you have more "branches" in the path,
which means the loads can be more talyored to your specific building and
also means you can end up with less conservative loads.  Personally, I think
that have take it too far with the available "branches", but I have also
traditionally used versions that are more complex than the UBC.

My point is that still with that complexity, neither method 1 or method 2
are that complex in my opinion, unless you get into the flexible building
scenario.  Method 1 is more of a pain since it produces more "zones" with
different pressures.  As a result, I do tend to use Method 2 for my calcs,
but I will use Method 1 to get some down and dirty pressures to get a feel
for where things are.  I can literally get pressures out of Method 1 in
about a minute or so.  Besides, topograpihcal effects tend to bump you out
of Method 1 right darn quick.

While I like seismic design as well, I will take having to deal with the
wind provisions LIGHT YEARS before messing with seismic.  And that is why I
am kind of surprised from all the grumbling from California.  I have to
admit that I would not think that engineers who can handle the complexities
of the seismic provisions should have any trouble with the wind provisions.
Frankly, to me, the wind provisions are cake next to the seismic stuff.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)usace.army.mil] 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:58 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: IBC 2007 Wind calcs.


Scott.  

Compared to the UBC, all the ASCE 7 methods are more complicated.  I agree
with people who said use the analytical method for a rigid building is the
easiest way because there aren't 10 different zones etc... etc... but you
still have to have a spreadsheet to calculate the pressures.

I think if I had to design a flexible building I would send chocolate
cupcakes with turds in the middle to the ASCE7 wind committee have a
supercomputer to calculate the gust factor.

Scott.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)umich.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:58 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: IBC 2007 Wind calcs.

I want to say that this method is more or less based off the simplified
method that Washington has produce and has been mentioned by others.
 
Personally, while I find there to be some complexities that I don't feel are
necessarily needed in the current ASCE 7 wind provisions, I don't find them
that difficult to use...including Method 1.  I find that I can pump out wind
pressures in method 1 in very short order.  It does take more time to use
those pressures to analyze stuff in MWFRS since they now have corner
pressures and such...but you don't really gain that much compared to older
more "uniform" pressures except for some buildings that might be rather
succeptible to torsional effects.  But it does help that I have been using
the ASCE 7 methods for a LONG time, while engineers in CA are more used to
only using the simplified methods that were in the UBC.
 
I would be the first to agree that ASCE 7 has gone of the deep end to some
degree in "sharpening the pencil" for wind provisions, but I am not sure
that I would liken them to a doctoral thesis (unless you are talking about
the wind provisions for signs or flexible structures or dynamically
sensitive structures and have to start calculating gust coefficients).
 
Regards,
 
Scott
Adrian, MI

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Matthew [mailto:sandman21(--nospam--at)gmail.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:48 PM
	To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
	Subject: Re: IBC 2007 Wind calcs.
	
	
	You can also try using
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/pubs/IR-16-7_WindLoad_12-18-07.pdf
	 
	Matthew
	
	
	On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Paul Feather
<PFeather(--nospam--at)se-solutions.net> wrote:
	

		Stan,
		
		First off, the simplified method is anything but simple.  We
use the
		general method (method 2) for everything and get more
consistent results
		easier.  The simplified method is derived from metal
building
		manufacturer methods, and for anything but a metal building
results in a
		complete book keeping atrocity.
		
		You are looking at 25 degrees area B.  The way the
simplified method
		works this is just one small area that cannot be applied in
the same
		thinking as the UBC horizontal projected area.  You have to
add the area
		B to the Area E uplift, basically all areas A through H get
applied
		simultaneously as one load case.  Then you rotate the
building reference
		corner and apply the whole thing again for all four
reference corners.
		
		Get away from the simplified methods and you will simplify
your life,
		while getting something closer to what you are used to.  I
don't believe
		the ASCE wind provisions could be any more convoluted and
difficult to
		apply to real world engineering if we tried.  The UBC
methods were
		derived as a conservative simplification of the ASCE
provisions years
		ago, and we desperately need to achieve something similar
again.
		Spending three days on a doctoral thesis to develop simple
wind
		pressures as opposed to working on load path and quality
engineering is
		counter-productive, and saving 1.4 psf in wind pressure only
matters to
		mass produced square boxes trying to be paper thin.
		
		Paul Feather PE, SE
		pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
		www.SE-Solutions.net <http://www.se-solutions.net/> 
		

		-----Original Message-----
		From: sscholl2(--nospam--at)juno.com [mailto:sscholl2(--nospam--at)juno.com]
		
		Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:09 AM
		To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
		Subject: IBC 2007 Wind calcs.
		
		
		After 40 yrs. of doing UBC calcs. I am attempting to do my
first IBC
		calcs. and need help, even after attending a seminar, which
seemed to
		cover lots of things but not this.
		
		For a simple house, using 6.4 Method 1 Simplified Procedure,
I cannot
		get a reasonable wind pressure of something between 15 psf
and 25 psf.
		
		From 6.4.2.1 <http://6.4.2.1/> , I get p s= 1.0 (1.0) 1.0
(2.3) = 2.3 psf which is
		unrealistic. This is using Fig. 6-2, exposure B, h=30 ft.,
Kzt =1
		and I=1
		
		Can someone point out my omissions/errors?
		
		Stan Scholl, P.E.
		Laguna Beach, CA
	
_____________________________________________________________
		Click for a credit repair consultation, raise your FICO
score.
	
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifRtUze4Z9jymsCe1UDroI
		mKifm7vcAZ7s56ZSkSvbiqVDov/
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifRtUze4Z9jymsCe1UDroImKi
f
m7vcAZ7s56ZSkSvbiqVDov/> 
		
		
		
		******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
		*   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 <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 <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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********