Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: 3-D Loading

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
While I am MUCH more familiar with BOCA codes, my quick look at UBC 1997
resulted in finding one reference to the 100% + 30% in section 1633.1.  I
don't know if this is similar to what is in BOCA or not, but based upon the
quick look it looked along the same lines.


At 01:19 PM 11/19/99 -0000, you wrote:
>Bill Allen writes,
>"like designing for 71% concurrently in each direction. Is that more severe
>than 100% in one and 30% in the other?"
>Bill is it not that wind is a function of the geometry of the building;
>meaning the vertical projection of the surface area. So at 45* we are
>dealing with a larger area of the elevation vs. perpendicular to the face of
>the building?
>Also where in the UBC I can find the 100% and 30% designations?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bill Allen [mailto:Bill(--nospam--at)]
>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 1:00 AM
>> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
>> Subject: RE: 3-D Loading
>> This doesn't make any sense at all, unless I am missing something. If you
>> design a building for loads at 45* (assuming a square building),
>> then that's
>> like designing for 71% concurrently in each direction. Is that more severe
>> than 100% in one and 30% in the other? It would seem to me that the only
>> elements that are critical in these conditions are those who are
>> participating in the lateral force resisting system for both directions,
>> i.e., common columns, etc. in which case it would appear to me that 1.3 is
>> greater than 1.0. But maybe, once again, I am oversimplifying the problem.
>> Regards,
>> Bill Allen, S.E.
>> Laguna Niguel, CA
>> ||-----Original Message-----
>> ||From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)]
>> ||Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 3:28 PM
>> ||To: seaint(--nospam--at)
>> ||Subject: Re: 3-D Loading
>> ||
>> ||
>> <snip>
>> ||Either during
>> ||construction or after occupied (I can't remember), he for some reason
>> ||decided to look at it with wind at 45 degrees and ALL the
>> ||lateral braces
>> ||were the point that there was a concern of
>> ||a collapse
>> ||that could result in several blocks being a
>> ||fix was developed.
>> ||
>> ||I guess that is what I get for watching too much Discovery channel...I
>> ||actually learn interesting things.
>> ||
>> ||Scott
>> <snip>