List of Contributions

Regarding IEBC, I was actually referring to the change of occupancy and classification of work. I realize that I did not make this clear; my mistake! The crux is that there are a lot of Level 1 alterations with no change of occupancy where the project doesn't even have a structural engineer on board. ...

Interesting question. I'm picturing the new building roof below the eave height of the existing--is that correct? At first blush, I don't think the relief ASCE 7 provides for unbalanced load applies to drift on an adjacent building. Unbalanced load would be mainly along the ridge, internal to the existing ...

Hello Stephan, I don't think I have a satisfying answer, but I tend to agree with the direction you're heading: a project-specific agreement with your owner and AHJ. A safe but conservative approach would be to consider the weight as a sustained SDL for seismic demands but use a LL factor on the gravity ...

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 RCIV, ...