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]
This has got to be GREAT news, George. Right?

Does that mean we can go back to doing "common sense" engineering (instead
of CYA engineering) and not to worry about getting sued?

If so, maybe the 1997 UBC authors have done us a great service!

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


||-----Original Message-----
||From: George Richards, P.E. [mailto:george(--nospam--at)BORM.com]
||Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 9:22 AM
||To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
||Subject: RE: drift calculation, 1997 UBC using ASD
||
||
||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
||
||
||