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

RE: Quick/Easy Question for Seismic List

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Thanks for the help.  

The building height includes a full 20' basement which is fully exposed
on one side.  In addition, thee levels at 18' each totals 74'.

Thanks again,  Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Charles Espenlaub [SMTP:Cespenlaub(--nospam--at)]
> Sent:	Wednesday, March 22, 2000 4:14 PM
> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject:	RE: Quick/Easy Question for Seismic List
> The 0.02 is unitless.  If multiplied by feet the result is feet.  If
> multiplied by inches, the result is inches.  Therefore 74'-0" x 0.02 =
> 1.48 ft.   
> On the side, it seems odd that a three story building is 74 ft tall.
> Charles F. Espenlaub, III, P.E.
> Martin-Espenlaub Engineering
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ritter, Mike [mailto:mritter(--nospam--at)]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 3:18 PM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
> Subject: Quick/Easy Question for Seismic List
> 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