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

RE: amusement structures

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
See UBC 1626.3 for the answer.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Burkhardt [mailto:aaron(--nospam--at)kpff.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:08 AM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject: amusement structures
> 
> 
> Is anyone familiar or had experience with "amusement 
> structures"? I am 
> reviewing some calculations for a waterslide structure and they have 
> omitted all seismic calculations (we are in seismic zone 3) 
> with a blanket 
> statement "wind load governs" (we are only 80 mph,  exp. B). The load 
> comparison done shows the seismic and wind loads to be 
> somewhat close in 
> value. In section 1634.1.2 it states that the redundancy 
> factor may be 
> taken as 1.0 for non-building structures. If there was a 
> structural system 
> that is not redundant, wouldn't a cantilevered column system 
> such as this 
> be it? Looking through he table 16P all the non-building 
> structures are 
> generally not going to have hundreds of children running over 
> them at any 
> given point in time, so that is the reason I am concerned. Also, in a 
> cantilevered column system, shouldn't the base plate weld to 
> the column and 
> the plate itself be subject to omega level forces and the detailing 
> requirements of chapter 16 and 22?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Aaron Burkhardt, P.E.
> KPFF Consulting Engineers
> Portland, OR
>