Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Wind loads: ASD or Strength?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>>> Now, the issue of C&C vs MWFRS pressures is a wee bit more messy and
>>> is not suprising that many get confused...
>>But it's not "confusing" for the same reason. It's a completely
>>different concept than "service vs. strength." It has to do with
>>statistical probabilities that a small area is equally likely to see a
>>higher pressure as an entire MWFRS is to see an "average" pressure.
>>The Commentary is your friend.
> I agree with Scott on this one.  CC isn’t nearly as simple as you’ve
> stated – if it were, why wouldn’t we just use the large trib area
> loading based on CC for the Main wind systems?

Please note I didn't say "simple." I agree, it's confusing. It's just that it's "confusing" for a different reason than the explanation of why seismic loads are "strength level" while wind loads are "service level."

I guess I was trying to be clever. I should NEVER try to be clever.

> I’ve heard an entirely different opinion of what CC means from nearly 
> every engineer I’ve asked.  I’ve even witnessed several engineers 
> debating this “line” for hours only to never completely agree... 

I had it explained to me by Kishor Mehta and the late Dale Perry. Their explanation was not hard to follow (with pictures), and I came away believing I understood it.

Yea, me.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********