Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: UBC 97 Alternate Basic Load Combinations

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Ugh, thought so, too. Now, I really have to increase my sections. Thanks.

The UBC 97 Errata at the ICBO website apparently missed this.

Jerome


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: UBC 97 Alternate Basic Load Combinations
Author:  MIME:aadams(--nospam--at)ramint.com at INTERNET
Date:    15/09/98 4:17 PM


>From: jerome.tan(--nospam--at)PAREURO.COM
>To: Seaint(--nospam--at)Seaint.org
>Subject: UBC 97 Alternate Basic Load Combinations >
>Folks,
>
>UBC 97 1612.3.2 on Alternate basic load combinations states that
>"... a one third increase shall be permitted in allowable stresses for all > combinations, including W or E."
>
>Notice the comma between the words COMBINATION & INCLUDING. Is that >suppose to be there? Shouldn't this be "...FOR ALL COMBINATIONS THAT >INCLUDES W or E."?
>
>If not, then does that mean that for Equations 12-12,12-14,12-15, >there is an allowed overstressing of 33 percent? Hypothetically, what >if I do not have roof, wind or snow load? Does it mean then that (D + >L) < 1.33*Allowable?
>
>Hope you can explain it. Thanks.
>
>
>Jerome

The comma is an error. It should read "... for all combinations including W or E." That is, for all combinations that include a Wind or Earthquake term. Just as in the previous code, it is not appropriate to allow a one-third stress increase to combinations that contain only Dead, Live, and/or Roof loads (such as Eq. (12-12)).

Allen Adams, S.E.
RAM International