| Date |
Text |
| 2007-01-23 16:30:10 | ****CORRECTIONS**** |
| | |
| | SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER |
| | 561-805-6724 [email protected] |
| | |
| | FBCFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 |
| | FBC RFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 RESIDENTIAL |
| | FBC EBFLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EXISTING BUILDING |
| | CODE |
| | FBC*CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AMENDMENTS TO THE |
| | FBC2004 |
| | |
| | 1.)PLEASE SEE PREVIOUS LISTS IN REGARDS TO USING WALL |
| | PRESSURES FOR THE SOFFIT.ALSO NOTE, FROM EMAIL FROM |
| | ROBERT BROWN ABO TO JASON HANCHUK, PE, THE FOLLOWING: |
| | |
| | I HAVE REVIEWED THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU SENT.AS |
| | PREVIOUSLY STATED, I AGREE THAT ONE LOAD CASE IS 'WIND |
| | PERPENDICULAR TO WALL' AND THAT YOUR METHODOLOGY |
| | ADDRESSES THAT LOADCASE.THE WIND LOAD ON THE SOFFIT |
| | UNDER THAT LOAD CASE IS A POSITIVE PRESSURE. |
| | |
| | HOWEVER, WHEN WE SPOKE YESTERDAY AND AGAIN TODAY, AND |
| | WHEN I SPOKE TO MR KELAHER, I POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS |
| | A CASE AT THE EAST-WEST GRADE LEVEL WALKWAY FROM OLIVE |
| | AVENUE TO DIXIE HWY WHERE THERE IS NO WALL (SEE SHEET |
| | A-1 OF LOUIS C. KALLINOSIS, AIA PLANS).AS I STATED, |
| | IN THAT LOCATION, THE WIND WILL ACCELERATE ACROSS THAT |
| | SOFFIT IN THE SAME MANNER THAT IT DOES ACROSS A FLAT |
| | ROOF.THAT ACCELERATION WILL RESULT IN NEGATIVE |
| | PRESSURES (SUCTION) ON THE SOFFIT IN EXCESS OF THE |
| | PROPOSED ZONE 4 WALL PRESSURE STATED IN THE WIND DESIGN |
| | LOAD CALCULATIONS.I DO NOT SEE THATYOU OR MR |
| | KELAHER HAVE ADDRESSED THAT LOAD CASE. |
| | |
| | I DISAGREE WITH THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF YOUR LETTER |
| | DATED 1/8/06 (SHOULD BE 2007?) ADDRESSED TO ALLEN |
| | PADILLA.IT STATES THAT ZONE 2 AND 3 LOADS ARE |
| | OVERHANG LOADS.I WOULD CONTEND THAT FOR A FLAT ROOF |
| | THERE IS NO OVERHANG.IF YOU REFER TO FIGURE 6-3 IN |
| | ASCE7-02 YOU WILL SEE THAT FOR A FLAT ROOF THERE IS NO |
| | OVERHANG FOR ZONE 2 AND 3.ALSO FIGURE 6-11B IN |
| | ASCE7-02 WHICH GIVES EXTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS FOR |
| | GABLE ROOFS WITH SLOPE RANGING FROM 0O (I.E. FLAT) TO |
| | 7O, GIVES PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS FOR ZONE 2 AND 3 ON THE |
| | ROOF AND THEN GIVES SEPARATE COEFFICIENTS FOR ZONE 2 |
| | AND 3 AT THE OVERHANGS.THIS WOULD NOT BE THE CASE IF |
| | ZONE 2 AND 3 WERE FOR OVERHANGS ONLY. |
| | |
| | WE ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF 'WIND PARALLEL TO |
| | THE WALL'.THIS LOADCASE WILL RESULT IN A NEGATIVE |
| | PRESSURES (SUCTION) ON THE SOFFIT IN EXCESS OF THE |
| | PROPOSED ZONE 4 WALL PRESSURE STATED IN THE WIND DESIGN |
| | LOAD CALCULATIONS. |
| | |
| | I DO NOT FOR ONE MOMENT CONSIDER DESIGN FOR WIND LOAD |
| | TO BE AN EXACT SCIENCE BUT I BELIEVE THE PROPOSED |
| | DESIGN TO BE NON-CONSERVATIVE AS THE WORST CASE |
| | NEGATIVE PRESSURE LOADCASE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN |
| | FULLY INVESTIGATED.THE FACT THAT THESE REPAIRS ARE |
| | EVEN NECESSARY WOULD IMPLY THAT THE SOFFIT ON THIS |
| | BUILDING WAS SUBJECTED TO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE WIND |
| | PRESSURE EVEN DURING THE 'LESS-THAN-DESIGN' WIND |
| | EVENT(S) THAT CAUSED THE FAILURE.EITHER PROVIDE |
| | JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF ZONE 4 WALL PRESSURES FOR |
| | THE CASE AT THE SOFFIT ABOVE THE EAST-WEST WALKWAY AND |
| | FOR THE 'WIND PARALLEL TO THE WALL' CASE, OR AMEND THE |
| | NEGATIVE PRESSURES IN THE WIND DESIGN LOAD |
| | CALCULATIONS. |
| | |
