×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Roof Members - Not Supporting ceiling deflection question

Roof Members - Not Supporting ceiling deflection question

Roof Members - Not Supporting ceiling deflection question

(OP)
IBC table 1604.3 allows lower deflections for roof members not supporting a ceiling. What about a steel or wood deck that is the structural deck and the ceiling. A ceiling is not hung or supported by the deck as the deck itself is the exposed ceiling. Would this fall under

Roof Member
Supporting nonplaster ceiling
or
Not Supporting Ceiling

thanks,

RE: Roof Members - Not Supporting ceiling deflection question

Not supporting ceiling.

BA

RE: Roof Members - Not Supporting ceiling deflection question

I agree with BA, not supporting ceiling.
But be careful of what is being placed on the deck. Had one owner that wanted to tile his existing deck. I had to explain that the deflection requirements of the tile could not be met without replacing or doubling/tripling the existing joists.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: Roof Members - Not Supporting ceiling deflection question

(OP)
thanks, I agree too.
It's not a provision I normally use. In this case I have a 3" laminated wood T&G deck that is the ceiling and structural deck. Most of it is fine at L/180 total load, but their is one small area where it's more like L/160 for a few pieces on a hip condition and I was hoping the L/120 would satisfy that. I could apply footnote d which allows the use of .5DL+LL to be used instead of the full DL which makes it plenty ok. I'm not comfortable using .5DL especially when the NDS suggests (not mandatory) using a creep factor of 1.5 on the dead load if worried about long term deflection. I really don't understand the reasoning of the .5DL allowance but then again I haven't tried too yet.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources