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

RE: UBC'97 "Elements, nonstructural, equipment"

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Attila,

Yes.  You are seeing it correctly.  The code writers were trying to keep it
simple.  It also does not take into account a 70' single story structure
(arena).  It is recognized that you could get different answers by doing a
detailed study.

There are no drift or deflection limits.

Regards,
Harold Sprague
Chairman - BSSC TS 13 - Nonbuilding Structures  
Black & Veatch
Special Projects Corp.
6601 College Blvd.
Overland Park, KS 66211
voice: 913-458-6691
fax: 913-458-9391
e-mail: SpragueHO(--nospam--at)bv.com
web site: http://www.bv.com/


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Attila Beres [SMTP:Attila.Beres(--nospam--at)Englekirk.com]
> Sent:	Saturday, May 06, 2000 1:17 PM
> To:	Seaint Listserver posting
> Subject:	UBC'97 "Elements, nonstructural, equipment"
> 
> Am I seeing this correctly:
> 
> 1. The seismic force for an item, located at the roof, falling under
> section 1632, is independent of the dynamic characteristics of the
> building (unless you go to a detailed study).  That is, no matter whether
> it sits on top of a one story shear wall bldg. or a ten-story moment frame
> bldg. ?
> 
> 2. Are deflection or drift limitations imposed for these items, e.g.
> cantilevering parapets?
> 
> ..........................................................................
> .
> Attila Beres, PhD, PE
> Project Engineer
> 
> Robert Englekirk Consulting Structural Engineers, Inc.
> Englekirk & Sabol Consulting Structural Engineers, Inc.
> 2116 Arlington Ave., Los Angeles, CA  90018-1398
> 323-733-6673, fax -8682        www.englekirk.com
> 
> Please note, that all communications from this e-mail address, that are
> not directly related to a specific project of REI/ESI are to be considered
> as my private opinion, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of my
> employer.
> ..........................................................................
> .
>