] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

[Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com]

But, Dennis, isn't it also true that a storage area's floor system would need to be designed to carry the larger live loads, and that the owner/occupant *could* expand the storage use into the non-storage area, thus possibly greatly overloading the "weaker" floor framing. 

And, to be extreme about it, couldn't the owner also decide to add a story to the building and in doing so also compromise the existing lateral-force-resisting system?   :) 

In other words, if we try to anticipate EVERY possible harmful act of an irresponsible owner we'll never stop "improving" the structure.   

Sort of like designing the WTC towers for, well, you know what. 

Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Richmond CA USA

In a message dated 7/20/08 12:14:59 PM, dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net writes:
> It is safer to assume the more conservative lateral load applied to the entire diaphragm at that level than to try and restrict it when there is not means in place (other than placard) to restrict compliance to the load restriction.



**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
      (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)