Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: FW: More About 1997 UBC Fp

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
"And they gazed upon it and saw that it was good...."  :-)

----- Original Message -----
From: <Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)fluor.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Cc: 'seaint' <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: FW: More About 1997 UBC Fp


>
>
> With respect to F-sub-P and roof values:
>
> In the beginning was allowable stress simplicity.  Out of simplicity,
ATC-3 was
> created on strength basis.  ATC-3 (eventually) begat 1998 NEHRP.  1998
NEHRP
> begat 1991 NEHRP.  1991 NEHRP begat 1994 NEHRP.  The 1994 NEHRP introduced
the
> F-sub-p factor based on location within building, with roof values being 4
times
> that at grade.  The 1994 NEHRP begat 1997 UBC (sort of), ASCE 7-95 Chapter
9,
> and 1997 NEHRP.  However the Provisions Update Committee for the 1997
NEHRP were
> tempted by industrial interests and, at the last minute, changed the roof
values
> from 4 to 3 times the grade values.  The 1997 NEHRP begat the 2000 IBC.
The
> 1997 UBC was not very sociable and begat nobody, not even a lousy
supplement.
> The 2000 IBC will begat the 2001 IBC Supplement.
>
> Notice that not only is the roof value different between 1997 NEHRP (2000
IBC)
> and 1997 UBC, so are the R-sub-p values.
>
> Rick Drake, SE
> Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo
>
> ****************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> "La Count, Curt" <Curt.LaCount(--nospam--at)Jacobs.com> on 09/16/99 01:37:00 PM
>
> Please respond to seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>
> To:   "'seaint'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> cc:    (bcc: Rick Drake/AV/FD/FluorCorp)
>
> Subject:  FW: More About 1997 UBC Fp
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for your reply Rick.
>
>  I understand that it is not possible to write a perfect code that leaves
no
> room for interpretation.  Engineers should be prepared to use engineering
> judgment at all times, even when the code is clear about a particular
item.
> I was just curious about the evolution of the F sub p topic in relation to
> the h sub x issue.  If this issue was first developed in the 1997 NEHRP
> provisions (from NCEER), how did the UBC depart from the intent of the
NEHRP
> provisions?  Or was the 1997 UBC developed first and the NEHRP provisions
> based on additional research?  This applies not only to the definition of
h
> sub x, but also the 3 coefficient (in lieu of 2)in equation 32-2?
>
> Curt La Count
> Jacobs Engineering
> Portland, OR
>
>
>
>
>