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

RE: 1.1Load Factor in 1997 UBC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Not so fast! The acceptance of load factor of 1.0 (instead of 1.1) is up to
the enforcing authority. In San Jose we have decided not to accept the
reduction of load factor, although Dr. Gosh has made a compelling argument
in the Building standards magazine. The reason we have not accepted it is
that, for buildings with short periods (i.e. less than 0.5 second) the 97
UBC code base shear ends up being less than the 94 UBC requirements (see
Figure 2 of the referenced article). The 1.1 factor is one way of
compensating for this reduction.

Ben Yousefi

 

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Eddie Gonzalez [SMTP:Eagonzal(--nospam--at)ENG.CI.LA.CA.US]
	Sent:	Tuesday, April 27, 1999 3:12 PM
	To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
	Subject:	Re: 1.1Load Factor in 1997 UBC

	For background on discrepancy, see Building Standards, May-June
1998, pgs
	205-209,"Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings under the 1997
UBC", S.K.
	Ghosh.

	In summary, use 1.0 in lieu of 1.1.

	Hope this helps,

	ed gonzalez

	>>> "Constantine Shuhaibar" <csh(--nospam--at)soha.com> 04/27/99 02:50PM >>>
	Has anyone clarified the inconsistancy between 97 UBC and ACI 318
regarding
	load factors for D+L+E?

	Constantine