What about the poor guy who gets crushed
by the "dog house" when it lands? (Refer to
Wizard of Oz for one possible outcome)
Or killed by the flying debris?
I never heard (or considered) this approach in six years
of work between Houston and Galveston. In my opinion,
the approach is irresponsible and violates the public
protection part of the law. You are not over-reacting.
Ralph Benson, P.E.
>>> bpolhem(--nospam--at)swbell.net 3/5/01 9:06:35 AM >>>
Recently, an architect client of mine and I were discussing a feature of a
commercial building we were working on. He does lots of convenience store/fast
food combination facilities. One client has a "doghouse" at the front entrance
of the store, a "penthouse" type structure that allows a sign-logo above the
entrance that extends about eight feet or so above the parapet line.
The doghouse itself is CFS supporting metal cladding, which sits on the beams
and joists of the main structure.
The design drawings given me showed a CFS structure that was WAY under-designed
to resist code-specified wind forces, and I proceeded to design it correctly,
which made for a much "beefier" structure, particularly where the roof members
and overall connnections were concerned. When he saw this, he had a negative
reaction. "Too much", he said.
I pointed out to him that we were building in an area where the design wind
speed is 120 mph (three-second gust). His response was "oh, that doesn't matter,
if they had a hurricane, the doghouse would just be blown off, and they could
build it back again".
I had NEVER heard of this approach before! In essence, he's saying "just design
it to handle gravity loads and don't worry about wind, this is not an occupied
portion of the structure. If it gets scoured off, no big deal".
Have any of you designed "components and cladding" type portions of a structure
under this approach? The architect insists it is perfectly valid: "we do it all
the time". Of course, this guy is the "Wal-Mart" of architects in our market,
and is used by developers here because he works cheaply, and doesn't get in
I'm starting to rethink my relationship with him on this basis, but I'd like to
know if this is perhaps more commonplace than I realize, and if I'm
"overreacting". I just can't imagine a building department anywhere allowing a
portion of a structure the possibility of being "blown away".