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

RE: Partition loading

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
If the partitions are load bearing, I would not include them as partition loads.  UBC 1606.2 indicates including the 20psf for walls "...locations are subject to change..."
 
Brian K. Smith, P.E.
Louisiana
-----Original Message-----
From: John Riley [mailto:jpriley485(--nospam--at)peoplepc.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:41 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Partition loading

For a 3-story senior care facility, I have specified TJI floor joists.  On the drawings, I delineated the live loads used, but did not specify the dead loads, which included 20 psf partition load per UBC97 1606.2.
 
Since I called out TJI's on plan, I consider it to be a performance spec.  Contractor is trying to use I-joist other than TJI's, arguing to the architect and building official that partition loading is not necessary.  Even the people (salesman probably) at TJI expressed surprise that partition loading was used.
 
Most of the interior non-bearing partition walls line up with one another, similar to in a motel.  But, I don't feel comfortable with omitting the partition loads, based on the argument that the partition walls "will not be moved."
 
I may be overruled by the building official, so my question is, does anyone on this list have a "template" letter to be used to document my position in the matter?  Of course, I can author my own, but thought the learned assembly here might have a good canned letter.
 
Also, if you have an argument, one way or the other, concerning the applicability of UBC97 1606.2, I'm very interested to hear it.
 
Thanks. 
 
John P. Riley, SE
Riley Engineering
Blue Grass, Iowa
319-381-3949
jpriley485(--nospam--at)peoplepc.com