Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Table 16-O - Horizontal Force Factors, ap and Rp

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
How can you prove that a A/C unit is not flexible?

Joseph M. Otto
Ireland Engineering
Fremont, CA

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Madden [mailto:GerardM(--nospam--at)crjarch.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 2:13 PM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
Subject: RE: Table 16-O - Horizontal Force Factors, ap and Rp


There was an erratta published where note c was corrected to read:

"Any FLEXIBLE equipment laterally braced or anchored to the structural
frame at a point below their center of mass"

So if your unit is not flexible, there is no need to use the 2.5 value.

Gerard Madden, P.E.
Civil Engineer, Associate
CRJ Associates, Inc.
email: gerardm(--nospam--at)crjarch.com
tel: 650.324.0691
fax: 650.324.0927
web: www.crjarch.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	From the desk of Joe Otto [SMTP:jmo_engineering(--nospam--at)email.msn.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, August 26, 1999 2:02 PM
> To:	Seaint@Seaint. Org
> Subject:	Table 16-O - Horizontal Force Factors, ap and Rp
>
> On one of our jobs, we're installing some air conditioning package
> units on
> top of a typical panelized roof.
>
> We used a value of 1.0 for ap as required by 3.B in Table 16-O (page
> 2-33).
>
> We received a plan check comment indicating that the value of ap
> should be
> 2.5 because the attachment of the unit is below its center of mass as
> is
> required by 3C.  If I use the 2.5 value, I get a value which is
> greater than
> that required for emergency power systems (3.D) and containers with
> flammable hazardous materials (3.E).
>
> Both parts of the code appear to apply?  Can anyone clarify when 1.0
> or 2.5
> are truly intended to be used.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Joseph M. Otto, PE
> Ireland Engineering
> Fremont, CA
>
>
>
>