It sounds like you might have a couple entries surrounding this topic
(like what exactly a batten is?).
I would include something similar to what you start off with when you
say " we don't really differentiate between MWFRS and C&C...". That
alone is an interesting item that could be expanded on. Is that also
true in Britain and Europe (Asia, Middle East, South America, etc.)?
(See, I learned several things already. Now if there was only a place
where I could write this stuff down that is searchable and have easy
access to it...)
Different building elements are highlighted and how to handle them
(walls, columns, beams, etc.) because I thought a designer would be
looking to apply the MWF and C&C loading on an element by element
basis. There are other elements that I didn't include that you may
want to add. I don't have any code references to back up my
statements other than the ones mentioned on this list, so anything
that the code refers to about this topic is useful.
- Jeremy
Quoting Conrad Harrison <sch.tectonic@bigpond.com>:
> Jeremy,
>
> How would I go about contrasting that with the local pressure factor
> (kl)approach of AS1170.2, to add international context?
>
> Here we don't really differentiate between MWFRS and C&C. Given the C&C
> approach of ASCE7-05, and the research, there is an implication that maybe
> we should probably be applying the local pressure factor in a lot more
> situations. For example local pressure factor would be applied to roof
> cladding and support batten, but not to any part of the roof truss nor
> rafter. Nor to a wall stud. The validity of the approach is reinforced by
> the timber framing code AS1684 and its accompanying structural model
> AS1684.1. More over the truss or rafter and wall stud would be subject to an
> area reduction factor (ka), and a load combination reduction factor (kc).
> Most recent revisions to our code, seem to tend towards more ways of
> reducing the wind loads not increasing. Maybe we should be tending towards
> increasing loads.
>
> On the other hand investigations after tropical cyclones tends to indicate
> the code is providing adequate strength. The main changes have been improved
> testing of steel cladding profiles for cyclonic conditions.
>
> It seems our respective code authors have different philosophies regarding
> risk, and accounting for extreme pressure coefficients: though neither of
> our codes account for the Cp=-20 apparently recorded at Texas Tech full
> scale building experiments.
>
>
>
> Regards
> Conrad Harrison
> B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
> mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
> Adelaide
> South Australia
>
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********