Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: UBC 1988 VS UBC 1997

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Is it just me, or is anyone else confused by this topic? I thought the
original question was to compare the 1997 UBC with the 1988 UBC (check the
subject line).

Regards,

Bill Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Laguna Niguel, CA


|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: Rlfong(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:Rlfong(--nospam--at)aol.com]
|| Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 11:26 PM
|| To: alexcnac(--nospam--at)skyinet.net; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
|| Subject: Re: UBC 1988 VS UBC 1997
||
||
|| Alex:
||
|| The 1997 UBC or the 1998 CBC calls for significantly more
|| stronger forces to
|| be designed structurally,  especially in relation to near
|| field (5km) of
|| active faults.  How and why and where these stronger forces
|| are called for is
|| why there is such a brouhaha about the new codes.
||
|| Ron Fong
|| Fremont, CA
||
|| In a message dated 9/26/1999 10:43:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
|| alexcnac(--nospam--at)skyinet.net writes:
||
|| << Our Structural Code is based on the UBC 1988.
||  What are the major differences between the two?
||  Is  UBC 1997 safer than UBC 1988.
||   >>
||
||