Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: drift calculation, 1997 UBC using ASD

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I am not sure of that.  Why would you calculate "delta s" (elastic
deflection) using ultimate level forces, and then use that meaningless term
to determine your inelastic "delta  m"?  So far I have not heard any
arguments that show would me that the above statement makes sense.  As far
as erratas concern, I checked the ICBO web site and I could not find any
erratas to the third printing of the UBC.  There is no mention of the fourth
printing of the UBC either.

Sasha Itsekson

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  34                               Message:0034                           34
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: Mlcse(--nospam--at)aol.com
  Subject: Re: drift calculation, 1997 UBC using ASD
  To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org

  In a message dated 11/10/1999 4:59:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
  mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com writes:

<<
 You are correct.  The erratum is itself an error.  The original text
 was correct; deflections are to be checked using strength-level
 loads.  I suspect that someone at ICBO *thought* the section
 reference was wrong and prepared the erratum.  The codewriters that
 I've spoken to all agree that the original text was correct.  All
 other U.S. codes (including the 2000 IBC) are clear on this point.
  >>

The First printing of the 1997 UBC was originally correct regarding using
strength design for calculating deflections when using ASD.
The second printing of the 1997 UBC was incorrect. The errata was a mistake
The third printing of the 1997 UBC I think was also incorrect (I don't
believe they had picked up the errata mistake at this printing).
The Fourth printing of the 1997 UBC is correct I believe, the same as was
stated in original the first printing.

Michael Cochran