List of Contributions

David, I took a look at the provisions you mention and it seems you have a point.  I would take the approach that the canopy provisions are developed for cases where the wind behavior at the canopy is dictated by the building it belongs to, and shouldn't necessarily be applied if you anticipate part ...

I agree with Edwin.  My interpretation is that the importance factor in Chapter 13 supersedes the Chapter 1 table, which is intended for the design of buildings rather than nonstructural components.  Chapter 13 is independent of risk category--except for a few provisions which are triggered only for ...

Thanks Keith, my ears are burning. I intended to bring in the MWFRS provisions for comparison purposes, although in hindsight I did not state this clearly.  ASCE's testing would have either demonstrated that overhangs influence pressures on non-overhang portions of the roof, or that they do not, so ...

Dwayne, My interpretation is that when an overhang is present, the overhang pressure need only be applied to the overhang itself; not the entire roof.  In MWFRS roof loads, there is no penalty to the roof for having an overhang; only the additional pressure acting on the overhang itself per 27.3.3 ...

Hello Justin, I always consider a moving load to be live, but to James's point I would be hesitant to take advantage of a reduction for a live load that will be present concurrently with a full design floor or roof load.  For the 0.75 reduction, are you referring to ASD load combination 4 in ASCE 7, ...