Structural Engineering: RE: ASCE 7-05

Given the wind damage that has occurred do to hurricanes, it seems the
wind provisions were inadequate.

So, calculate a standard wind load for your area and use it for every
project that has similar parameters. Leave the project info blank so it
can be written in.

Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:40 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05

This may rub academics wrong, but building codes should be written to
the
lowest common denominator. This is so mistakes won't be made, not so
that
idiots like me can do the work. You shouldn't have to buy software or
spend
40 hours writing a spreadsheet to calculate wind loads in order to
figure out
what the code requires. You should be able to easily open a code book
and
quickly hand check your computer model output with a calculator on the
back
of a napkin. If not the code is broken.

I used to tell people to quit whining about code changes. I haven't
been in
the profession that long though and have seen 3 different seismic
loading
codes and two wind loading codes. I used to say no big deal to ASCE7
wind
but if history truly repeats itself then in the near future the wind
code
will be completely changed again.

The UBC wind loads were much easier to apply. The designs were not less
safe
otherwise everyone would be retrofitting buildings designed with UBC
wind
loads.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian K. Smith [mailto:smithegr@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:46 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05

Charles,

When was the last time a building failed in Texas, Mississippi,
or
Louisiana due to an earthquake? I don't remember reading about that
event
either but the IBC says we have to consider it. Not only that but in
many
cases I am required to detail the building to meet the seismic
requirements.

I have been using the wind load provisions of the IBC and ASCE 7
for
7 or 8 years. It's not that big of a deal.

Bks

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles R. Ashley Jr. [mailto:charles@advanceeng.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:15 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05

As engineers we tend to learn by failures. After all, it was the 1994
Northridge EQ that spurred major revisions to the seismic provisions in
the
1997.

So I have to ask....when is the last time a Type V building failed due
to
wind in California? Anyone wake up in the morning and find a roof that
doesn't below to you sitting in your front yard?

I am trying to figure out what tragic wind event triggered these
ridiculous
revisions! I am sure there must have been a bus load of innocent
children
involved, I just can't seem to find it.

-----Original Message-----
From: smaxwell@umich.edu [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:35 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05

While I do believe that there are a lot of engineers out there who are
overly
harsh on the various code/standard committees (it is rather easy to
"backseat" drive or complain about stuff when you are not familiar with
the
process or the work that goes on and the difficulty in getting sometimes
50+
people to agree enough on something to produce a provision), I do
believe
that ASCE 7 has gotten a little out of hand with the wind provisions.
Having
messed with the wind loads for signs recently, I can say that it is WAY
to
involved a process to get wind loads for a freakin' sign (it took me
multiple
hours to JUST get the wind pressure for the sign).

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

Quoting "Garner, Robert" <rgarner@moffattnichol.com>:

>
> ASCE has very successfully made wind design into rocket science. Way
to
> go ASCE!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. [mailto:ghodgson@bellnet.ca]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 4:59 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05
>
> I will take back part of what I said. The quality of engineering
> drawings, particularly structural drawings from the US, are very good.
> However when you read computer instructions, technical manuals, and
> codes where they have been prepared by engineering organizations, they
> usually leave something to be desired. The trouble is that they know
> all about their subject but don't realize outsiders are starting from
> scratch; they just assume everyone will know what they mean.. An
> example is 1995 ASCE-I bought their Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
> -- and after reading the seismic requirements three times I was
totally
> lost and thought the problem was me. So I called a friend at a large
> engineering company who was assistant head of the industrial
department
> and he said the ASCE seismic parts seem to go in circles. We agreed
to
> ignore it and use the UBC, I believe. I wrote a letter of complaint
to
> ASCE and heard nothing back. If I am not mistaken, there have been a
> lot of complaints recently about the ASCE wind load requirements.
>
> Christopher Wright wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:
>>
>>> Actually makes sense, as engineers are not known for their
>>> communication ability
>>> Gary
>> Not the good ones. Engineering is discipline of communications--we
>> don't (routinely) make things; we tell people who do how to makes
>> things properly. That's what drawings and reports are all
>> about--communicating instructions unambiguously to artisans (for lack
>> of a better word) can give materials a specific usefulness. We don't
>> do science or math; we use science and math to make sure the
>> instructions we communicate are soundly based in physical principles.
>>
>> My own experience is that academics who teach engineering tend to
lose
>
>> sight of the need for communications and organization--maybe out of
>> desire for greater rigor in presentation or just a tendency to
impress
>
>> the onlooker with technicalities. I know that's happened with the
>> Pressure Vessel Codes. With the ASME Codes, I think the problem is
>> that industry isn't supporting Code writng efforts like they once
did,
>
>> and academia has necessarily moved in. I've always suspected (without
>> an ounce of actual proof) that it's what happened when LRFD was
>> introduced.
>>
>>
>> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
>> chrisw@skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
>> .......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
>> 1864)
>> http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw/
>>
>>
>>
>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>> * 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@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@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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
> The information contained in the e-Mail, including any accompanying
> documents or attachments, is from Moffatt & Nichol and is intended
> only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is
> privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
> be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or
> use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
> received this message in error, please notify us.
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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:
> *
> *

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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@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

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date:
10/22/2007
7:57 PM

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date:
10/22/2007
7:57 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date:
10/22/2007
7:57 PM

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********