>>> 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: 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********