Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

• To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
• Subject: RE: Italian Seismic Loads
• From: Harold Sprague <harold.sprague(--nospam--at)neenan.com>
• Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:14:49 -0700

```Bruce,

This is an area that is in a  state of flux.  The 97UBC (the 2000 IBC will
be in general agreement) states:
Fp = 4.0 Ca Ip Wp

Ca is a maximum of 0.66 (reflects bad soil and close to fault)
Ip = 1.0 (but you could make a case for a 1.5 if it is an important piece of
art work)
Fp = 2.64 Wp

You can see the huge difference with the 1994 UBC.

With good soil and 10 km away from the fault Ca = 0.32
Fp = 1.28 Wp

There are also adjustments for height of the building and the height of the
floor under consideration in the 1997 UBC.

I would be inclined to use the 1997 UBC.

Regards,
Harold Sprague
The Neenan Company
harold.sprague(--nospam--at)neenan.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Parkerres(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:Parkerres(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 3:00 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org

To all:

We are currently designing a piece of artwork to be hung from a ceiling of a
musuem in Venice, Italy.  I would really appreciate it if someone could tell
me what is the correct seismic design coefficient for such a piece.  We are
currently basing our design on the 1994 UBC with Fp = ZICpWp = 0.80Wp,
assuming Z = 0.40 for seismic zone 4, I = 1.0 for nonessentials, and Cp =
2.00 for nonstructural components "signs and billboards" or "exterior and
interior ornamentations and appendages".