The manager of a wood framed commercial building nearby is about to lease
space to the University of California. The U of C has provided him with a
"Certificate of Applicable Code" which is to be completed by a local
Architect, Civil or Structural Engineer.
The document states as follows:
"I, _____________ an architect, civil engineer or structural engineer,
licensed by the State of California, have completed a recent walk-through
and reviewed the available documentation of the building, and hereby certify
that the design and construction of the entire building, known for purposes
of this agreement as <Building Address> was either:
A) Approved by the local jurisdiction pursuant to the 1997 or later edition
of the Uniform Building Code (UBC);
B) Approved by the local jurisdiction pursuant to the 1076 or later edition
of the UBC, including all additions, modifications or repairs to the seismic
resisting system. The building was originally constructed in 1997.
Additions/modifications/repairs took place in 1997.
I further creativity the building is not and does not contain any of the
(i) Unreinforced Masonry walls;
(ii) welded steel moment frames (WSMF) constituting the primary structural
system of the building which WSMF's (a) have been subject to previous strong
ground motion (approximately 0.20g or greater) since construction, or (b)
may have low or limited redundancy, or discontinuity or offsets of the
(iii) flexible diaphragm-rigid walls;
(iv) Apparent additions, or modifications, or repairs to the seismic
resisting systems dome without a permit.
(v) hillside construction on a slope steeper than 1-vertical to
(vi) multi-story wood frame structure with construction over the first-story
parking (soft-story structures)."
My two questions:
1. What is the reference to the 1076 or later edition of the UBC?
2. Although I have not yet checked the building, I do believe it is wood
framed walls and diaphragm. The aspect ratio of the diaphragm and location
of the walls would indicate that the diaphragm is probably rigid (the full
diaphragm is relatively rigid). I would assume they are speaking of masonry
or tilt=up buildings with wood diaphragms.
Can anyone explain this to me so that I can advice my client. The building
was completed 3 or 4-years ago. I believe it is wood construction (client
did not know but has the drawings). This would put the design into the 94
UBC. Does the report specifically exempt compliance to anything earlier than
the 97 UBC?
Has anyone filled out these affidavits. and can you explain the limitations.
Dennis S. Wish, PE
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org