I am in the process of reviewing some calculations for the design of lt guage girts that support a foam panel siding. The local jurisdiction follows IBC 2009. The person who ran the wind load calculations used 0.75 W as a load combination. From what I can tell, this load combination is not allowed for pure wind cases. Are there any other material specific reasons why a 0.75W case would be allowed?
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
Wind load stress increase?
- Thread starter SteelPE
- Start date
SteveGregory
Structural
I agree with your assessment of the the current building code.
- Thread starter
- #4
msquared48
Structural
Technically I think you can if you are looking at only the girt, not the whole structure.
The thought being that the lateral wind force to the whole strcture is divided between a positive force on the windward wall, and a suction force on the leeward wall. Hence, the lesser of the two would control the girt design, not the sum.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
The thought being that the lateral wind force to the whole strcture is divided between a positive force on the windward wall, and a suction force on the leeward wall. Hence, the lesser of the two would control the girt design, not the sum.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
- Thread starter
- #6
msquared
You can take a reduction because the force is on the girt and not the whole structure? The loads applied to the girt is calculated based upon the Components and Cladding requirements of ASCE7. In this analysis you calculate windward and leeward pressures and then take the worst scenario (usually leeward) to design your member. I don't see how your argument would apply?
You can take a reduction because the force is on the girt and not the whole structure? The loads applied to the girt is calculated based upon the Components and Cladding requirements of ASCE7. In this analysis you calculate windward and leeward pressures and then take the worst scenario (usually leeward) to design your member. I don't see how your argument would apply?
woodman88
Structural
- Oct 23, 2009
- 1,020
- 0
- 0
SteelPE,
What wind load W are you talking about?
If the girt can only see either the windward or the leeward load (of the total wind load case) at one time, than only the windward or leeward load case would apply to the girt loading, for the total wind load case. Maybe the engineer felt that upon doing the required calculations that the the windward or leeward load to the girt would be less than 75% the total wind load and that 75% the total wind load case and would control over the components and cladding load cases or maybe they did the all the calculations and are only showing the worst case wind load calculation for the girt.
You would have to talk to the engineer to find out why the 75% was used.
Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.
What wind load W are you talking about?
If the girt can only see either the windward or the leeward load (of the total wind load case) at one time, than only the windward or leeward load case would apply to the girt loading, for the total wind load case. Maybe the engineer felt that upon doing the required calculations that the the windward or leeward load to the girt would be less than 75% the total wind load and that 75% the total wind load case and would control over the components and cladding load cases or maybe they did the all the calculations and are only showing the worst case wind load calculation for the girt.
You would have to talk to the engineer to find out why the 75% was used.
Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.
- Thread starter
- #8
woodman88
I tried talking to the engineer, he wouldn't return my calls. The client has a tight time line so I didn't want to waste to much time trying to contact him. I marked up the calculations and sent them back.
As an EOR I have the ultimate say on how I want my building designed. He was using the C&C values straight out of ASCE 7 for simplified structures. In my opinion if he uses these numbers then he must use 1.0W and not 0.75W.
He was real sneaky about it too. He calculated the moment based upon the full wind load and then took the reduction when he calculated the required section modulus (Sx=M*12*.75/Fb).
I tried talking to the engineer, he wouldn't return my calls. The client has a tight time line so I didn't want to waste to much time trying to contact him. I marked up the calculations and sent them back.
As an EOR I have the ultimate say on how I want my building designed. He was using the C&C values straight out of ASCE 7 for simplified structures. In my opinion if he uses these numbers then he must use 1.0W and not 0.75W.
He was real sneaky about it too. He calculated the moment based upon the full wind load and then took the reduction when he calculated the required section modulus (Sx=M*12*.75/Fb).
- Thread starter
- #10
So I marked up the calculations and sent them back.
Spoke briefly with the engineer who was a little short with me and explained that he didn't use the IBC for his design,he used the equations from the AISC (which doesn't even govern the design of lt guage girts). He said he would switch everything over to strength design and that would solve his problem. OK good so far.
Get the calculations in today and he back figures the section modulus using the equation Sx=(M*12*.75/.9Fy)*1.6. So basically he is taking a stress increase in strength design when he uses 0.75*1.6=1.2 ......
Spoke briefly with the engineer who was a little short with me and explained that he didn't use the IBC for his design,he used the equations from the AISC (which doesn't even govern the design of lt guage girts). He said he would switch everything over to strength design and that would solve his problem. OK good so far.
Get the calculations in today and he back figures the section modulus using the equation Sx=(M*12*.75/.9Fy)*1.6. So basically he is taking a stress increase in strength design when he uses 0.75*1.6=1.2 ......
SteveGregory
Structural
Your "friend" is confused or on drugs. He needs to use ASD or LRFD. You can't mix and match methods.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question