I was thinking of a triangular load with the peak about a foot out from the upper balcony, but it might more similar to sliding snow (and be a uniform load). The total load and area of effect of this would be the balanced + drift over the non-covered area.
If ASCE 7 is applicable in Canada, this might fall into the open air provisions and allow the balanced (and fetch distance) snow load case to be reduced.
Outside of the drift requirements, I would check a load case of snow being shoveled from a higher balcony to a lower balcony.
IBC table 1604.3 has a column for Snow or Wind. Also the notes of that table are important. Note 'a' has L/60 for metal panels and L/90 for secondary wall members supporting metal panel. Note 'f' lets you use a reduction factor or the 10-year MRI maps for deflection.
I guess the problem pile is the rotated square at section 17.
Some ideas in probably increasing difficulty:
1. Design the spread footing for the extra load of the existing deck.
2. Check the existing pile for possible additional load from the spread footing.
3. Expand your scope to redesign the...
Partially Open would go with provisions applicable to Enclosed. ASCE probably added Partially Open late in the cycle and didn't add it everywhere it should have been. In 7-22 they fixed this oversight.
The "Guide to the Use of the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7" has an example of a U-shaped building. It notes that L-shaped buildings are not specifically covered by chapter 28 and outside the scope of research for the "pseudo pressures" of chapter 28. It recommends using chapter 27 for L-shaped...
As JStephen says, it depends on the application. Is it a building structure, a piping structure, a jet engine structure, etc? These all can use the same shape of components but have very different tolerances. In my field (building structures), we fabricate to 1/8" (about 3mm) of tolerance. I...
The "Guide to the Use of the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE7-02" has the formulas. Newer version should have it as well. They are in the same form as the other formulas ( constant + coefficient * log( area ) ).
It is probably a coincidence that the checks on the middle column (picture 4) align with the inside edge of the support beam. Could what little load has actually been applied compress the column unevenly and expand the existing checks?
It won't change the results for this one, but may trip you up in the future. The enclosed check appears to follow check 2a. It should be the opposite of check 2a, since the enclosed check should be less than minimum opening size.
Just looking at the screenshot, you have the mislabeled values for Aoi and Agi, which might cause some confusion. Aoi is the sum of the openings in all the other surfaces. Agi is the sum of all the other surfaces areas.
Your 2a check has the comparison the wrong way. Surface opening greater...
With buildings that are open on three sides it depends on the geometry of the building whether it will be "partially enclosed" or "partially open" and I just have to calc it.
"Open" and "Partially Enclosed" have used the same formula for a very long time. So "open" in 7-10 and 7-16 are the same. Before 7-16 "Enclosed" was the catch all enclosure classification. This was a point of confusion for many (How is this building enclosed when I can see though it?). In...