Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Plan review

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Thanks for all your input, turns out that the designer for a canopy system (not part of my design scope) had a flat roof and had calculations for a 1”/hr rainfall for ponding.  The city comment was placed in the wrong spot on the plan reviews list, it didn’t even apply to me. 




From: h.d.richardson [mailto:h.d.richardson(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:48 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Plan review




        I actually had a similar experience.  The building I had to work with had a long dimension that resulted in a sloping roof about two feet lower at one end.  One end bay collapsed flooding water into a machine shop.  This sort of thing can happen.




H. Daryl Richardson

----- Original Message -----

From: Drew Morris

Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:22 AM

Subject: Re: Plan review


Stan Caldwell related a building/roof failure some years ago due to the scuppers in the CMU wall parapet being set a course too high.  The additional 8" of water was enough to lead to a roof collapse.  Perhaps something similar is the reviewer's concern.

Jason Christensen wrote:

I just received a city structural plan review from Reno, so if there are any of you from that area please help me out. 

One of the comments was: “Ammended Appendix D UPC 2006 of the City of Reno requires 3” per rain fall calculations for roof design”.  I looked up this amendment and see that it is a plumbing code that requires 3”/hour of rain fall.  I have combed though IBC and ASCE 7 and cannot find any requirement that deals with rainfall on roof loading other than Chapter 8 of ASCE 7 and that section does not deal with a inches/hour rainfall.   I have called the city reviewer for a few days now and cannot get a return call, so I am hoping someone on this list from Reno area might know what this is about.