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]

One thing to keep in mind when going to seminars is to take everything that is said with a grain of salt. The presenters always look at things from their own perspective, which should not be mistaken with the actual facts or code requirements. As Ronald Reagan would say “trust but verify”.

Ben Yousefi, SE, CBO

Chief Building Official

City of Mountain View, CA

(650) 526-7007


From: Joseph R. Grill [mailto:jrgrill(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:21 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: Alternate Wind Provision



I understand the definition.  I am only pointing out that the question of “rigid” came out during the seminar that I listened to, and the presenter, said that a plywood diaphragm would not be considered rigid for his simplified approach.  I don’t recall for sure if his simplified method is the same as what is being considered in the ICC hearings, but if I recall correctly, it is.  I may be wrong though.

Personally, I think his simplified approach, which tabulated net wind loads under certain criteria, is a pretty good thing for residential work.

I was just pointing out that there are those that would say that a plywood diaphragm does not support the “rigid” criteria for the simplified approach.  However, it may fall under the definition  of a “simple diaphragm”.

All the more reason to dislike the ASCE 7-05 wind criteria.



From: Gordon Goodell [mailto:GordonGoodell(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:32 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: Alternate Wind Provision



I mostly use the analytical procedure b/c most of our stuff is too irregular to qualify for the simplified.  But looking at my 7-05 (most recent, I believe), the word “rigid” is not in the definition:

“BUILDING, SIMPLE DIAPHRAGM:  A building in which both windward and leeward wind loads are transmitted through floor and roof diaphragms to the same vertical MWFRS (e.g., no structural separations).


Gordon Goodell


From: Joseph R. Grill [mailto:jrgrill(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:42 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: Alternate Wind Provision


A couple weeks ago I listened to a web seminar, ASCE with CEU units through NSCEA.  The name of the seminar was “Designing Buildings for Wind Load by ASCE 7-05”.  In that seminar it was also indicated that the simplified method was for a “simple diaphragm building” with one of the criteria being  “…wind loads are transmitted through rigid floor and roof diaphragms.”  A question was asked of the speaker if this method would include flexible plywood diaphragms and the answer was “no”.

Joe Grill

ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticity