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]
But, then how blinded are you being by JUST looking at how it affects you?
(note this is not meant to be an attack but an obervation).  There are LOTS
of places where seismic does NOT govern and high winds DO govern.  In those
areas the difference in the results of some conservative, "simplified"
method and the results from a more complex, but "fine tuned" method could
have a rather big impact.  People in such area would argue "why do I have to
do that new fangled, more complex seismic check when seismic won't govern"
rather than some simple, but conservative method that they might have been
using for a long period of time.

The point is that things vary quite a bit across our country.  The end
result is that there will be complex to deal with all those different
situations.  It can either be done with a crap load of different simplified
methods that pertain to specific locations and their particular issues
(which then means you need to learn a bunch of different ways if you design
in different areas of the country) or with a method that can address the
particular issues of different areas under one "common" method.  By and
large, the code has taken the second approach with a slight node to the
first approach.

Ultimately, you will never satisfy everyone.

In your case, there is likely no benefit to the new approach and is likely
more painful.  Don't disagree.  I would argue that it is not THAT much more
painful (I suspect you will spend more time dealing with the changes to the
seismic portion than the changes to the wind portion still).  But, if you
were design stuff in high wind/hurricane zones, then you would HAVE to have
something different if for no other reason than the UBC has never really
dealt with such issues to my knowledge.  This is the result of a "national"
code.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen [mailto:T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net] 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:34 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: IBC 2007 Wind calcs.


Scott-

My argument would be (and there may be others who agree) that even though
the ASCE 7 method can be figured out in time, what's the benefit? More work,
but why? Is the design better? Are the buildings going to be safer? Are they
going to be more economical? I haven't done very many wind calculations
using the ASCE 7 method, but my seat of the pants answer would be "no",
especially in high seismic regions and probably "no" in low seismic regions
as well. The difference in the results between the two methods isn't that
great, is it? And if the difference WAS/IS substantial, then what were we
doing wrong for all those years? Are those buildings going to fall down? How
am I ever going to get a good night's sleep again?

Doing calculations for the sake of doing calculations, while certainly
entertaining, takes away time from detailing IMO.

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)umich.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 4:23 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: IBC 2007 Wind calcs.
> 
> There is a BIG difference between being "not as easy as the UBC" and 
> being complex enough that it is tough to use.  I think that both 
> Chris' and my point is that we don't disagree that it is more complex 
> than the UBC, but it is also not hard to use (in our opinion).
> 
> Personally, I don't know how much of the grumbling is due to 1) people 
> not liking change; 2) people just not being used to it and have to 
> adjust to it; or 3) people just not understanding it because it is too 
> "complex" for them.
> I suspect that a lot of it is #1 and #2 and that once people get past
> those
> two issues (which time will solve), that #3 is really a non-issue.
> 
> 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 7:03 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: IBC 2007 Wind calcs.
> 
> 
> If you read the guide - I think per ASCE 7-05 6.1.4.1 you are supposed 
> to use a minimum of 10 psf projected on the vertical surface when you 
> have no horizontal pressure component on the roof.  I rest my case: 
> not as easy as the UBC.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chris.slater(--nospam--at)gmail.com [mailto:chris.slater(--nospam--at)gmail.com] On Behalf 
> Of Chris Slater
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:46 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: IBC 2007 Wind calcs.
> 
> All of this talk is making me worry that we're doing something 
> horribly wrong...
> 
> I put up a sample of the way we're doing our wind calcs here: 
> http://www.examplecalcs.com/hosted/18329.pdf
> 
> I use a program to generate the A, B, C and D loads.   If the B and D
> loads are negative, I just use 0.  Then I generate my wind loads by 
> taking the B pressure from the ridge down to the plate, and the A
> pressure from the plate to the middle of the wall height.   In the
> example I posted, W1 and W2 are calculated that way.
> 
> For gable ends, or lower levels, I just use the A load from the top of 
> the projected area to the middle of the lower wall, which is how I got 
> W3 and W4 in the example.
> 
> For long buildings, I will sometimes use the C and D loads for the 
> section of the building that is more than 2a from the corners, but in 
> general, I just use the A and B loads since these tend to be lower 
> than the projected area winds we used in the old UBC code.
> 
> It's not simple, but it's not incredibly complicated either.  Which 
> makes me worried.  Am I missing something, or does this seem like a 
> reasonable approach.
> 
> Chris
> 
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Haan, Scott M POA 
> <Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)usace.army.mil> wrote:
> > 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.p
> > df
> >
> >         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/Ioyw6iifRtUze4Z9jymsCe1UDr
> oI
> >                 mKifm7vcAZ7s56ZSkSvbiqVDov/ 
> > <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifRtUze4Z9jymsCe1
> > UD
> > roImKif
> >  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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********