Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: component and cladding vs MWFRS

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I myself was unaware that it was debatable not to use both MWFRS and C&C
for elements that serve dual purposes. I use the MWFRS loads on diaphragm
and shear wall sheathing, and OT moment. I use C&C loads on everything else
the wind touches since it is the more critical loading. I thought ASCE 7
was explicit...maybe not. I would have been the guy saying that engineer
should have used the C&C loads.

Hard to image the difference would have caused a court case. Did something
fall down, or was it a mud fight where the warring parties through
everything out and the kitchen sink?

             "Andrew Kester,                                               
             <akester(--nospam--at)cfl.rr.c                                          To 
             om>                       <seaint(--nospam--at)>                 
             12/30/2008 12:04                                              
             PM                                                    Subject 
                                       component and cladding vs MWFRS     
             Please respond to                                             

Not to start a long-“winded” discussion on this subject, as it has been
discussed and argued ad nauseam on the list before, but I thought I would
share this info I just came across.

I am working on some required CEUs for my Florida PE, and in the course
they do a case study and one of the items the engineer got in trouble for
was related to the wind loading for roof members, “Components such as roof
framing members and their connections must also be designed for ‘Component
and Cladding Wind Loads’.”

So we can academically or theoretically have lots of discussions on the
subject, but it is pretty clear how the Florida Board is interpreting this

Regards and happy holidays!
Andrew Kester, PE
Orlando, FL