Subject: Re: What is the 1076 of Later Edition of the UBC?
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:34:01 -0700
I suspect it is a misprint - should be 1976 UBC.
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:03:17 -0700 "Structuralist" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net>
> The manager of a wood framed commercial building nearby is about to
> 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
> licensed by the State of California, have completed a recent
> and reviewed the available documentation of the building, and hereby
> that the design and construction of the entire building, known for
> of this agreement as <Building Address> was either:
> A) Approved by the local jurisdiction pursuant to the 1997 or later
> of the Uniform Building Code (UBC);
> B) Approved by the local jurisdiction pursuant to the 1076 or later
> of the UBC, including all additions, modifications or repairs to the
> 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
> 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
> moment frames;
> (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
> 3-horizontal; or,
> (vi) multi-story wood frame structure with construction over the
> 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
> framed walls and diaphragm. The aspect ratio of the diaphragm and
> of the walls would indicate that the diaphragm is probably rigid
> (the full
> diaphragm is relatively rigid). I would assume they are speaking of
> or tilt=up buildings with wood diaphragms.
> Can anyone explain this to me so that I can advice my client. The
> was completed 3 or 4-years ago. I believe it is wood construction
> 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
> 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:
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> * 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
* 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