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]
 
Plan checkers freak out when they don't see code equations...they insist you did it wrong without any understanding of what you did.   That small little box "ASCE 7, CBC or IBC" to some who are wired so tight that life cannot exist outside that box.
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/12/2008 12:30:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com writes:
Stan, because it's TOO sensible and logical.

Jordan, damn near!

Ralph

In a message dated 3/12/08 12:40:26 PM, seaint2(--nospam--at)truesdellengineering.com writes:
Is there a provision which prevents this? Providing you can prove that
you have verified where the maximum windforce is, I would say that
rational analysis suggests designing the entire structure for the higher
force is conservative and therefor acceptable. Have we legislated out
rational analysis yet?

Jordan

sscholl2(--nospam--at)juno.com wrote:
> Thanks for sendng this update. It is difficult for some of us in earthquake country to understand why this has been made so difficult.
>
> If say the largest wind force comes out to be about 15psf, with much less force in the other 20 or so locations, why we can't just design the entire building for say 20psf.
>
> Stan Scholl, P.E.

 
Joe Venuti
Johnson & Nielsen Associates
Palm Springs, CA