Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Dynamic drift calculations (1998 CBC/1997 UBC)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The erratum is wrong!  All drift calculations ARE at the strength
level.  ICBO is issuing another erratum to undo the one you cited.

I reported this error to ICBO.  Here is their response:
"A new errata that will soon be published in the Building Standards
Magazine and included on our website will revise the reference section
number in the third sentence of Section 1630.9.1 from Section 1612.3
to Section 1612.2."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael Valley, P.E., S.E.                   E-mail: mtv(--nospam--at)
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc.              Tel:(206)292-1200
1301 Fifth Ave, #3200,  Seattle  WA 98101-2699      Fax:        -1201

-----Original Message-----
From: croper(--nospam--at) [mailto:croper(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:42 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: Dynamic drift calculations (1998 CBC/1997 UBC)

Drift calculations are not all at "Strength" level.  Errata to section
1630.9.1 says to use load combinations of section 1612.3 where
Stress Design is used (the 1.4 factor is taken out).  See the

Chris Roper

-----Original Message-----
From: Jake Watson [mailto:jwatson(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 7:53 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Dynamic drift calculations (1998 CBC/1997 UBC)

1. All drift calculations are at "Strength" level.  You must leave the
1.4 factor in.

2. My response is an opinion here - no code section to back it up.  I
would reduce the load to the appropriate level (80%,90%,100% etc.)
before deflection.  My interpretation is that we design for "design
level" forces.  So calculate Delta S with design level forces, then
magnify by 0.7R to get delta M.  Then divide by 1.4 to get to WSD.  If
you are doing dynamic design note two other things: first, you must
design for forces in both the X and Y axis simultaneously.  You can
the SRSS method or 100% in one direction and (I think?) 40% in the
other.  Secondly,  if you are using concrete shearwalls you are only
allowed to assume 50% of Ig for stiffness (see concrete shearwall
section) when calculating deflection.  This can have a huge impact on
secondary moments.

3. Opinion again here - I would say include and move on.  It's not
likely to make a difference on most typical buildings for deflection
no one will question you.  If it makes a difference it might be worth
call to one of the code Gods at ICBO to find out.

Hope this helps.

Jake Watson, E.I.T.
Salt Lake City, UT

"Harper, Mark" wrote:
> Questions: (Reference 1998 CBC VOL 2, based on the 1997 UBC)
>         1.      Section 1630.9.1 refers to section 1612.2 for load
> combinations to be used with Allowable Stress Design.  Does this
mean that
> take the dynamic base shear and scale it as required to the base
> obtained in section 1630.2 without dividing by 1.4 for the drift
> computation?
>         2.      When calculating the drift using a dynamic analysis,
> working stress design do I scale down the load to (80, 90, or 100%
> on building type) of the static base shear (section 1630.2) to
> S  then multiply that value by .7R to obtain delta M.
>         That is Delta M = Delta S*.7*R (reference 1630.9.2)
>                 Then when calculating the forces in the members
scale down
> the dynamic forces by an additional 1.4 to obtain working stress
>         3.      When calculating "E" (section 1630) ROW is equal to
> drift calculations and Ev =0 if designing for working stress.
> Ev have to be taken into account for drift design?
>                 Example; Dynamic base shear gets scaled down to E =
Eh or
> gets scaled to E = Eh+Ev, where Eh = the base shear obtained in
> 1630.2?  Because the drift calculation "Delta S" appears to use
> design loads I would think that Ev must be included in the design
> shear. However section 1630.9.1 refers only to section 1630.2.1
> make me think that the vertical component Ev is not to be included
> calculations!
> Thanks for your help!
> Mark Harper PE, SE
> mharper(--nospam--at)
> Phone: (626) 564-2820
> Fax: (626) 564-2873

Jake Watson, E.I.T.
Salt Lake City, UT