Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Wood Fr-Upgr : What I'll do and two more questions

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The question assumed disclosure was required for a deficiency that existed
in the structure. I don't believe this was the case.  The home was designed
by a Los Angeles based Architect and permits were issued by the local
municipality at the time. Therefore, I don't believe this to be a deficiency
but a limitation based upon allowable use of the code at the time.
Is it correct to assume that once a change is applied to the home (ie,
addition added) the remainder of the existing structure is no longer in
conformance and shall be treated as deficient? I don't think that was the
intent that Fred Turner and others pointed out in the Uniform Code for
Building Conservation.
Considering the intent of the UCBC, this home would not be deficient and, I
believe, would have nothing to disclose.
Possibly a statement of design intention and requesting that the owner
maintain a copy of the plans on the residence (or concealed within the
residence) will help future owners (and their engineers) who wish to follow
the chronological changes made to the structure.

I may be carrying this a bit farther than I anticipated, but "What are the
limitations of disclosure?"


-----Original Message-----
From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at) [mailto:Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:01 AM
To: rjbossi(--nospam--at); seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Wood Fr-Upgr : What I'll do and two more questions

In a message dated 10/30/98 9:01:17 AM, rjbossi(--nospam--at) writes:

>1.  calculate the EQ load the existing structure would deliver to the
>wall using the current code tributary area methods and compareit to the
>of the existing roof diaphragm.  Use whichever is less (most likely the
>diaphragm capacity) since the wall won't see more load from the original
>structure than the existing diaphragm can deliver.
That's true for now, but what if they upgrade the existing house in the

We're faced with a similar situation in the Bay Area right now.  Bicyclists
want a bike lane included on the planned new east half of the Bay Bridge.
Opponents say there's no bike lane on the existing west half, so you'll only
be able to get halfway to San Francisco.  Supporters respond that if we
include a bike lane on the east half it will preclude bikes for a hundred
years, even if the west half is eventually rebuilt or retrofitted.  It's all
in how far ahead one looks.

Does anyone else assume full tributary area to new shear walls, assuming
they might be able to receive the load in the future even if they can't

Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Richmond CA