Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: CBC Vs. UBC Do I need another Code?[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: CBC Vs. UBC Do I need another Code?
- From: Tjb5424744(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:09:35 EST
As for structural provisions for a project no covered by DSA of OSHPD, the requirements are basically the same for structural design. It is symantics. California adopts the state building code as Title 24, California Code of Regulations. The latest in effect being the 1995 California Building Code (CBC) which, for structural design, is the 1994 UBC with California Amendments. The local jurisdictions adopt the CBC with local amendments. Unless the local amendments specifically require seismic retrofit and specify the design standard to be used, the engineer is free to design to any nationally recognized standard. Your choice of the Uniform Building Code for Building Conservation (UBCB) is founded for unreiforced masonry. If this is a tilt-up anchorage retrofit, the provisions of L.A. Division 91 or 1996 UBC Supplement may be appropriate. For other types of construction maybe the CBC (UBC) would be correct. Keep in mind, as with all codes, they are a minimum design standard to prevent potential collapse and may not protect the building from needing to be demolished after a minor earthquake. This is what perfomance based seismic design is all about. Forget Ricter Scale!! Ask the owner what (s)he expects for the expenditure of this money on retrofit. See if (s)he is willing to spend more (or less) for other results after the earthquake. Ted Beckwith, RCE
- Prev by Subject: Re: CBC Vs. UBC Do I need another Code?
- Next by Subject: RE: CBC Vs. UBC Do I need another Code?
- Previous by thread: Re: CBC Vs. UBC Do I need another Code?
- Next by thread: RE: CBC Vs. UBC Do I need another Code?