几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量  


返回   几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量 » 三维空间:产品设计或CAX软件使用 » CAD设计 » 产品功能分析
用户名
密码
注册 帮助 会员 日历 银行 搜索 今日新帖 标记论坛为已读


回复
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-07, 01:00 PM   #1
huangyhg
超级版主
 
huangyhg的头像
 
注册日期: 04-03
帖子: 18592
精华: 36
现金: 249466 标准币
资产: 1080358888 标准币
huangyhg 向着好的方向发展
默认 asce 7 wind speeds 180mph

asce 7 wind speeds 180mph
i'm working on a location that has a wind speed (3 sec gust) of 180 mph!!! the asce 7-05 simplified wind tables only go up to 170 mph. i don't really want to go through the full blown wind calcs (simplified method is much easier).
has anyone ever run into this? is there a method to upconvert the wind speed for use in the simplified method? thanks.
find a job or post a job opening
i don't know of a way to "upconvert" the wind pressure. extrapolating from the tables would get challenged by any reviewer, in my opinion.
my office has a vendetta against method 1 of asce 7. and, i agree. method 2 is not much more complicated; it's more accurate; and it won't take too much time once you get used to it. it's good practice, and i think it's quite fun actually.
viva method 2.
(180^2/170^2) will get you pretty darn close but i wouldn't reccommend trying that with your basic wind speed. method 2 also has its limitations based on structure geometry. read the commentary.
i use that conversion occaisionally for a fast check, to make sure my #'s look correct
method 1 has many limitations as well.
send the building to wind tunnel. follow up with an apology letter to owner. assure him in the letter that the building will be designed better than method 1.

if you're alrady into a 180mph zone, it wouldn't be good to "cheapen out" by doing a lot of work to get out of doing a lot of work just to get an answer that isn't as accurate. just do it the right way with the analytical method.
steelmover had the right idea, check out the formula for basic pressure you will find that the only variable that changes is the wind speed therefore you need to up the pressures by(180/170)^2.
i would, however recommend that you use the longer method in this case as this would be more legally justifyable.
180 mph wind zone is no place to play with extrapolated "simplified" method...use the analytical method or wind tunnel.
__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言:前进吧,你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]
huangyhg离线中   回复时引用此帖
GDT自动化论坛(仅游客可见)
回复


主题工具 搜索本主题
搜索本主题:

高级搜索
显示模式

发帖规则
不可以发表新主题
不可以回复主题
不可以上传附件
不可以编辑您的帖子

vB 代码开启
[IMG]代码开启
HTML代码关闭

相似的主题
主题 主题发起者 论坛 回复 最后发表
asce 7 wind loading of perforated surfaces huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 12:59 PM
asce 37-02 construction wind loads huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 12:55 PM
asce 17-96 para. 4.2.5 load combinations seiasce 7-02 com huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 12:54 PM
are asce 7-02 wind loads ultimate or service level huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 12:46 PM
another wind load question huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 12:18 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 12:38 AM.


于2004年创办,几何尺寸与公差论坛"致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T | GPS研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量"。免责声明:论坛严禁发布色情反动言论及有关违反国家法律法规内容!情节严重者提供其IP,并配合相关部门进行严厉查处,若內容有涉及侵权,请立即联系我们QQ:44671734。注:此论坛须管理员验证方可发帖。
沪ICP备06057009号-2
更多