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]
Given the path of this discussion; of all those lawyers who are now up to
their necks in cement (sic) I bet a few could now make the argument that the
building code is sufficiently ambiguous so as to be unenforceable in a
court-of-law.

George Richards

-----Original Message-----
From: Mlcse(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:Mlcse(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 11:33 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: drift calculation, 1997 UBC using ASD


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