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

Re: Quick/Easy Question for Seismic List

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Michael:

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.

Shafat





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,
mritter(--nospam--at)lgt.lg.com writes:

<< Colleagues,

 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
 0.02(888")=17.76".

 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
 it.

 Thanks again for the help!

 Michael Ritter, PE >>