aware of. The Guide to the ASCE 7-02 Wind Provisions also shows the
application of the 10 psf minimum acting only on the vertical
projections.
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Joseph R. Grill <jrgrill@cableone.net> wrote:
> I'm going to confuse the issue some more. O.K. in using the net uplift in
> overturning calculations that means the roof uplift forces are loading the
> MWFRS. ASCE 7-05 (6.1.4.1) uses a 10psf minimum on the vertical plane.
> What about the horizontal plane for uplift? I don't see a minimum required
> for that. For the uplift can you just use the vertical component of the
> outward forces on the roof from 7-05. Or is there a minimum that I am not
> seeing?
>
> I guess the reasons for these questions is I have a small box addition. I am
> getting a lot of hold downs using the traditional segmented design. I am
> going to get some real comments from the number of hold downs for this small
> structure. Therefore, I started looking at the other two methods to cut
> down on the number of hold downs. But as things go sometimes, there are
> more questions that come up.
>
> Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 7:01 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Hold downs with "Perforated Shear Wall Method" and "Force
> Transfer Method"
>
> I think I understand the intent of what you are saying, but wording does
> bother me.
>
> With wind or seismic in one direction so that the shearwall is not loaded,
> but there is overall uplift on that wall, there would be no possible
> "double-dipping" as the wall would not be subjected to overturning (assuming
> a simple diaphragm, thus no torsional effects).
>
> With the wind or seismic in the other direction, the wall (if a shearwall)
> should be exposed to both overturning and potentially net uplift (due to
> wind uplift or the vertical component of a seismic force...overall, more
> logical to think about it in terms of net wind uplift) AT THE SAME TIME.
> Thus, the same dead load should be resisting both the uplift AND the
> overturning. In other words, your FBD of the shearwall will have the wind
> overturning force, the net uplift, and the 60% of the dead load that would
> work to resist both...all as loads applied to the shearwall. I don't
> consider that "double-dipping". I agree that if, for some reason, you check
> the wall seperately for uplift and for overturning, then the same dead load
> should not be used in both check...but I would think you should be checking
> both uplift and overturning in the same check.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Showalter, Buddy [mailto:Buddy_Showalter@afandpa.org] On Behalf Of AWC
> Info
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 9:47 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Hold downs with "Perforated Shear Wall Method" and "Force
> Transfer Method"
>
>
> One caveat however, the WFCM does not use dead load to offset uplift and use
> the same dead load again to offset overturning (double-dipping). So in the
> WFCM tables, we only show dead load offsetting uplift loads.
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
--
William
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********