Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Live Load Reduction

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mitchell,

	I don't know what the justification is for YOUR loading; that's why I
recommended you review it.  Some museums have display cases filled with
drawer upon drawer containing artifacts that, if not actually on
display, are readily available to be seen; others have reference
material filed on shelves not unlike library stack rooms; some may even
have tanks filled with rare fish; all have storage areas for material
not on display.  Any of these displays could be significantly more than
100 p.s.f.

	I just wanted to caution you that 100 p.s.f. might be much too light.
But you and your client are the ones who have to be satisfied with it;
if your displays and your storage requirements, both now and in the
foreseeable future, are all sufficiently light to keep within 100 p.s.f.
there is no need to design for more.  You might, however, want to think
about posting warning signs as a reminder to the staff so that they
don't overload the floors at some future date.

				Regards,

				H. Daryl Richardson

Mitchell J. Sklar wrote:
>
> Daryl,
> What is justifying the loading condition? My loading condition is based
> on portable lightweight displays. For example MDF covered with vinyl or
> foam covered with vinyl.
>
> Mitchell J. Sklar, P.E.
> Senior Structural Engineer
>
> BALA Consulting Engineers, Inc.
> (mjs(--nospam--at)bala.com)
> p 610-649-8000 x345
> f 610-649-8475
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daryl Richardson [mailto:h.d.richardson(--nospam--at)shaw.ca]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 1:35 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Live Load Reduction
>
> Mitchell and Mark,
>
>         I respectfully submit to you that 100 p.s.f live loading is much
> to low
> for museum loading!  I've only ever designed one museum and that,
> admittedly, was a very major museum (designed for 11 stories, although
> not all of them were built, and taking up a third of the block).
> Never-the-less we used a design live load of 250 p.s.f.
>
>         I would strongly recommend that you review your live load
> requirement.
> You may even want to get written conformation from your client regarding
> the adequacy of the final live load chosen.
>
>         Perhaps others on the list may also wish to comment on the
> proposed
> loading.
>
>                                 Regards,
>
>                                 H. Daryl Richardson
>
> Mitchell J. Sklar wrote:
> >
> > I need some options on the following interpretations:
> >
> > BOCA 1996 1606.7.2.2 & 1606.7.2.3
> >
> > I am designing a museum, Use Group A-3, with a parking garage below.
> >
> > Option A would be to use 100psf. live load.
> >
> > According to section 1606.7.2.2, Is the live load reduction not
> applicable
> > at all or not applicable for parking garages, one way slabs and roofs?
> Can I
> > still take advantage of the live load reduction on the floors? If live
> load
> > reduction is not applicable at all see Option B.
> >
> > Option B would  be to use 101psf.  live load and take the 20 percent
> > reduction on the columns only. Do you agree?
> >
> > Mitchell J. Sklar, P.E., MBA
> > Senior Structural Engineer
> > mitchsklar(--nospam--at)alumni.psu.edu
> >
> > p 215-997-0931
> > f 413-383-1615
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >                      Name: winmail.dat
> >    winmail.dat       Type: application/ms-tnef
> >                  Encoding: base64
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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(--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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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(--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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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(--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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********