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

Re: UBC Section 1612.2.1, Exception 2

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill
I believe that Dr. Ghosh did have all the technical reasons to justify that
the 1.1 factor was not needed, however, the code body still require it and
the state Code CBC98 still rquire it.    It is my understanding that some
jurisdictions could not act alone to remove the 1.1 facotor without having
the state amendment agreeing to the change. 
Samir Ghosn, P.E.
Harris & Associates
 At 03:11 PM 3/28/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Dr. Ghosh published an article in the ICBO magazine about this.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Allen, S.E." <Bill(--nospam--at)jrma.com>
>To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 11:36 AM
>Subject: UBC Section 1612.2.1, Exception 2
>
>
>> I have some hand written notes in my seminar book when I attended the ICBO
>> Seminar on the 1997 UBC Earthquake Regulations. I believe the presenter
>was
>> S.K. Ghosh and I believe he said that this exception, which requires
>> multiplying the load factors by 1.1, should be deleted and is not
>> appropriate.
>>
>> My questions:
>>
>> 1. Does anyone else have similar notes?
>>
>> 2. Has anything been published publicly (such as a SEAOC position paper)
>> which states this?
>>
>> 3. (a big one), what about masonry?
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> Bill Allen, S.E.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>