Subject: Re: Adding a mezzanine to a Masonry Building in Seismic Zone 4
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 21:21:12 -0700
I just completed a mezz. in a fairly large tilt-up building with a 25 ft.
ceiling ht., to store car parts, in Corona, CA. I designed it to stand
alone, with wood shear walls just inside the tilt-up exterior walls and
with a new footing around much of the mezz. I used cantilevered columns
with grade beams on the open front side.
This was a design-build job and the contractor and I decided on this
prior to beginning the design.
Stan Scholl, P.E.
Laguna Beach, CA
On Wed, 16 May 2001 10:38:16 -0700 "Structuralist" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net>
> I need to put together a proposal to add a wood frame mezzanine to an
> existing masonry building in Palm Springs. The building is more than
> 40-years old. The building is roughly a 3:1 aspect ratio (about
> 100-ft x
> 35-ft) and the mezzanine (wood frame) will take up only about 1/3 of
> floor space (33' of the 100-ft width).
> The mezzanine will provide rooms which will be used for off space on
> first and light storage on the second floor. The mezzanine will
> attach at
> the second floor diaphragm to the existing masonry building on three
> The masonry walls are 100% solid where the mezzanine occurs. One
> side of the
> mezzanine is open at the second floor (it overlooks the first floor)
> and the
> first floor walls will provide shear (lateral) resistance at the
> open side.
> However, the second floor open side has no shear connection to the
> I would normally have added the mezzanine dead load into the
> existing roof
> dead load (adding about 5-psf over the entire roof), and
> re-calculate the
> lateral analysis to the masonry walls to verify that they have the
> to resist the additional shear. At the open side of the mezzanine, I
> have calculated only the second floor diaphragm shear transfer into
> first story walls to resist drift. Considering that there the two
> are tied together, does this seem like a reasonable plan? The
> lateral load
> from the roof is distributed to the four masonry walls and would
> include the
> weight of the mezzanine - but the open front of the mezzanine is the
> side unaccounted for that I would use the first floor shearwalls.
> So here are a couple of questions for Zone 4 areas;
> 1. Is it appropriate for me to simplify the design by using the
> base shear (conservatively) at 0.186Wd to calculate the lateral load
> by the mezzanine and verify all existing masonry walls to laterally
> the addition?
> 2. Would I be expected to bring the structure into compliance with
> current code (near source values, full-compliance by flexible and
> 3. Would I be expected to use flexible design for the unsupported
> side of
> the mezzanine based on the Simplified Static Design
> [0.3ICa/(1.4R)]*Wd ?
> Dennis S. Wish, PE
> * 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(--nospam--at)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
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)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