In ASCE 7-02, I'm a bit confused as to how to apply the main wind force resisting system wind load from a component. For instance, I have a rigid frame that is obviously a part of the MWFRS with a cantilevered beam. The cantilevered beam on the side of the frame, naturally, would not receive the same wind load. Does someone have any advice? I can't seem to get a definitive answer from my boss.
MWFRS vs. C & C in ASCE 7-02
- Thread starter McEngr
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
S
scottiesei
Try designing the component itself to C&C. The overall structure to MWFRS. i.e: A roof truss on a structure. The truss itself shall be designed to C&C loading, but the reactions to the building shall be taken as MWFRS. I actually wrote an exhaustive article on this several years ago and had FBC and building officials back me up. Also, there is a good book, I believe entitled "guide to the use of the wind load provisions" also by ASCE.
RIP - VTEnviro
His Memory Eternal
Damn, there's too many acronyms in this thread.
:hung:
:hung:
S
scottiesei
LOL, WTF. Just because the ASCE devlopes the codes for the WL doesn't mean that you should hang yourself. Us structural guys are stuck with ACI, PCI, NDS, LRFD, ASD, IBC, OMRF, SMRF, LBW, etc. If you know the meanings, you should be qualified to pass the SEI. But good point, there R a shit load of acronyms. WFCM, PCA, FE, G40, G60, ASTM, SYP, SPF, DFL, LVL, PSL, TJI, OJ, UNO, TYP, OC, MIN, MAX, PS, FBC, FRC, HTS, LSTA, HTT, BRG, ENG, WTCA, TPI, BCSI, AASHTO, AISC, MSJC, WWF, KSI, PSI.....
:drunk:
:drunk:
Scottiesei,
I understand that an overhang should be used as the roof coefficient from the MWFRS. However, when the overhang is below the eave, it would seem that the wind coefficient, especially for designing for service loads in the MWFRS, would not fall under the figure for low-rise buildings. As usual, I design the beam for the overhang as a C&C. But when it comes to reactions and the overall building envelope for MWFRS, I get hung up on which coefficient to use.
Any more comments?
McEngr
S
scottiesei
We are not blessed with GCps for overhangs using the low rise calcs. I thought that I read somewhere thats way the end zone is "2a" ILO "a" as with the CC. The reaction to the building should be reported using the MWFRS.
P
petermcc
Agree with Scottiesei.
The "Guide to the wind load provisions" previously mentioned has an example where a roof purlin is checked for bending loads due to the C&C pressures, and axial force from the MWFRS.
my '.02'
The "Guide to the wind load provisions" previously mentioned has an example where a roof purlin is checked for bending loads due to the C&C pressures, and axial force from the MWFRS.
my '.02'
Thanks Scottiesei and petermcc,
One thing that I'm not convinced of is the internal pressure. Would I use a 0.69, for instance on a 1:12, and not include any internal pressure? It would be more conservative to use 0.69+0.18(enclosed), but it doesn't make sense if it's outside the building envelope.
BTW, I don't have the copy of the design guide. I had it at my previous employer because they had a decent library. My current employer doesn't seem to care about such things... don't get me started (see the "I think I'll go shoot myself" thread in the civil pe forum for more info...).
Thanks.
McEngr
S
scottiesei
I would use 1.07 (don't forget that it's negative, suction!). Agreed the internal pressure doesn't make much sense to use outside the structure but keep in mind that using the GCpf you are finding a mutiplier for the actual pressure. The difference in applying the internal pressure coefficent to the small overhang will have a negligible effect on your design. For ease, I would keep it in.
