17.76 inches is wrong. Your answer of 1.48 inches appears to be correct,
although little less than I am used to see. (0.166%)
The height used should be in feet not in inches. The formula uses feet. See
then definition of the story height.
Hope that helps.
At 03/22/00 05:08 PM, you wrote:
Is this some kind of a joke!!! What's the difference if it is in inches or
feet. The formula is not empirical such that changing units will affect the
value of the result. 1.48 ft is obviously equal to 17.76 inches.
Alfonso S. Quilala Jr., P.E.
In a message dated 3/22/00 12:47:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Please help me with a quick question. I am looking at some calcs
prepared by another engineer, who calculated the allowable story drift
for a three story building from BOCA and ran the number based on story
height in inches. In other words, the building height is 74', but he
used 888 inches. This gives the allowable story drift to be
I've always used the story height in feet, which would give an allowable
drift of about 1.48". I was going to show my colleage the code section
which says story height is in feet, but could not find it in BOCA, UBC,
SBC, Farzad Naiem, or any other text books. Does anybody have a
reference section showing that the story height, by definition, should
be in feet? I know it must be there, but I'm in a rush and can't find
Thanks again for the help!
Michael Ritter, PE >>