Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Alternate Wind Provision

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: Message
I am curious as to how you consider them "stealth wind load provisions".  ASCE 7-05 has been available for quite a while.  There is nothing "stealthy" about them.  In addition, it has been known for close to a year that California was going to adopt the 2006 IBC, which adopts the ASCE 7-05 wind provisions by reference.  Thus, by default, you "knew" for almost a year what you would have to be using for design.  I don't see how any of that is "stealthy".
I will further note that ASCE 7-05 is not all that different than ASCE 7-02 in terms of wind provisions and there are LOTS of practicing structural engineers that have been using ASCE 7-02 wind provisions for quite a while.  Thus, there is plenty of "hints" of the impact on practicing engineers.
The point is that this is not some completely unknown set of provisions that came completely out of no where and ambushed anyone.
Adrian, MI
-----Original Message-----
From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at) [mailto:Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 12:39 PM
To: sylai(--nospam--at); seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Alternate Wind Provision


Thank you for your Information Bulletin.

I am *amazed* that the "stealth" wind load provisions managed to become law without a hint of their impact on the practicing Structural Engineer, but once they became effective it appears to *nobody* really understands them, they require enormously greater effort for minuscule, if any, improvement in the end result.

How did this happen?

Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Richmond CA USA

In a message dated 2/14/08 11:02:08 PM, sylai(--nospam--at) writes:
Information bulletin:
For those who are interested on wind design procedure, we have two parallel versions of proposed code changes (items S84 and S85) submitted to ICC, and will be heard by the ICC Structural Committee in the Code Development Hearing at Palm Springs later this month. Both versions have been development by the Tri State Wind committee with delegates appointed by their respective structural engineers association from California, Oregon and Washington. The alternate design procedure conforms to ASCE 7 Chapter 6 Method 2, but greatly simplified by tabulating net pressure coefficients for MWRFas well as for components and claddings. The main difference between the two versions is the format of the net pressure coefficient table very much similar to UBC 1997 in format.
The proposal from SEAOC Wind Ad Hoc committee is now incorporated and adopted as an Interpretation of regulation under the California Division of State Architects which has juridiction over K-12 and community colleges. The provision is call IR 16-7. Those interested may view it under: 
James Lai, F.SEAOC
Chair, SEAOC Building Code Committee

The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. Go to AOL Music.