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

Re: Partition loading

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

I don't see why the Building Official would get involved in this.  One
way or the other, you are not violating the code.

This is probably an issue for the owner to resolve.  Give your architect
the options so that he can relay them to the owner.  Since the
contractor has bid the deeper joists, have the contractor calculate the
credit that would be received if the shallower joists are employed.  Let
the architect know that the current design accomodates any future
modification and/or relocation of the partition walls.  Since the owner
will probably hold on to the facility for a long term, they may like
that flexibilty.  Alternatively, if the shallower joists are employed,
any future modifications to the partitions will require engineering
analysis and probably some design and construction to strengthen the
structure to accomodate partition changes.  Basically, pay now or pay
later.  The owner can then decide on wether they want the credit from
the owner now and less flexibilty in the future or pay a little more now
and a lot of flexibility in the future.

Jeff Coronado, S.E.
West Covina, CA

John Riley wrote:
> 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)

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** 
*   Read list FAQ at: 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to 
*   admin(--nospam--at) and in the body of the message type 
*   "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email 
*   to admin(--nospam--at) and in the body of the message 
*   type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send 
*   email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********