Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: nonbuilding structures

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill,

I do use the TIA/EIA-222-F Standard for tower analysis but it only covers
wind.

The manufacturer of this particular pole product is selling it to a Southern
CA customer. As such, the customer has spec'd. design per 97 UBC.

I realize "other approved standards" can be fallen back upon but..... (call
me a know it all Californian) I would feel most confident  relying on EIA
and all its research for wind and stick with the UBC for seismic. Perhaps I
have my head in the sand however and an equal amount of research has been
done for seismic in developing the EIA standards.

Don't mistake this statement as testimonial to the grand wonders of the 97
UBC. Most of the time I feel like I am chasing my tail when reading the damn
thing.

At any rate, I am interested in the EIA Standard to which you refer which
covers seismic.

Regards,

Mark


----- Original Message -----
From: Scott, William N. <William.Scott(--nospam--at)veco.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 3:20 PM
Subject: RE: nonbuilding structures


> Mark,
>
> Consider using the appropriate EIA Standard for light poles.
>
> Bill Scott, P.E., S.E.
> VECO Engineering
> 949 East 36th Street, Suite 500
> Anchorage, AK 99508
>
> Phone 907-762-1655
> Fax 907-762-1733
>
> > ----------
> > From: Mark D. Baker[SMTP:shake4bake(--nospam--at)earthlink.net]
> > Reply To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 2:17 PM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: nonbuilding structures
> >
> > This is aggravating:
> >
> > 97 UBC seismic analysis for a 100' prestressed concrete pole (2' dia. @
> > bottom, 1' dia. @ top) with  light fixtures at top.
> >
> > Clearly we are dealing with a nonbuilding structure, however... Does
> > section 1634.3 Rigid Structures imply that only rigid nonbuilding
> > structures may be designed under section 1634 ?
> >
> > If the structure is considered flexible, should design then be per
section
> > 1634.5 Other Nonbuilding Structures  or would a flexible nonbuilding
> > structure be designed per section 1630.2.1 ?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your comments.
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
>