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

Re: Seismic and snow

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] This would assume (re: storage) that the building is never vacant. While the owner would certainly strive for such a condition, market forces do not always cooperate. (What would the symbol for market forces be for load combinations? Maybe 0.6D+0.6*(0.2*S or 0.4$)+.7*E ?)

Jordan

Paul Feather wrote:

I agree. This is similar to the question with regard to including storage loads in seismic. If a portion of the storage load is included for the lateral, it should also be included for the overturning.


Paul Feather PE, SE
www.SE-Solutions.net
pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
----- Original Message ----- From: "Haan, Scott M POA" <Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)poa02.usace.army.mil>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:10 AM
Subject: RE: Seismic and snow



I think you can use the snow included in seismic weight to resist overturning with the load combinations that exist. I have had people argue with me if you have to use snow in seismic weight then you should be able to use that portion being included in seismic weight to reduce overturning. It seems
rational.

.6D+.6*(.2*S)+.7*E

The E has a .2*Sds*(D+.2*S) vertical reducing the .6D.



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********