Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: 2000 IBC v 1999 UBC code question

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Jeff-
My understanding is slightly different regarding wood.  I thought the 1/3
increase for wood had to do with the fact that wood's test capacity is highly
rate dependent.  The 1/3 increase is used for dynamic loads like seismic.
The Simpson values should come from tests in wood, and would therefore by
allowed the increase--however, I'm not sure that is in fact how they test.  I'd
bet a nickel that the very close nail spacing on some of their straps would
split the grain.  I don't think ICBO does a very good job of monitoring the test
setups used (and or permits dubious calculation methods to be used to derive the
loads ratings for some hardware).
Chuck Utzman, P.E.

Jeff Barrett wrote:

> George:
>
> To answer your question...it is my understanding that the 1/3 stress
> increase never had experimental data to back it up.  It simply was "always
> done that way".  Now, the IBC has taken that option out even though the
> individual referenced standards allow it (AISC, ACI, etc...)  Wood is still
> allowed because it is unlike the other materials because in its design
> criteria the allowable stresses are low and then bumped "up" by factors such
> as 1.15 and 1.6 depending on the criteria.  This is due to the fact that
> every wood member is different.  Other materials such as steel start with
> higher stresses (because of the better quality control of the material) and
> are reduced.
>
> To answer your question regarding the Simpson ties...you better ask them,
> but my feeling is most of those connectors are governed by the connection
> (nails, screws, etc...) and the failure is in the connection to the wood.
> Consequently, for wood connections, these Simpson would not need to be
> reduced since the stress increase is allowed for wood.  However, if you were
> using these connectors in light gauge steel design, they would have to be
> reduced.
>
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Richards P.E." <george(--nospam--at)borm.com>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 1:51 PM
> Subject: 2000 IBC v 1999 UBC code question
>
> > Fellow Engineers:
> >
> > I am reviewing the impact the IBC will have on how we design out West.
> >
> > Using 1997 UBC Alternate Basic Load Combination 1612.3.2 we are allowed a
> > 1/3 stress increase for wind or seismic only loading regardless of if the
> > material is wood, steel, or concrete.
> >
> > Using 2000 Alternate Basic Load Combination 1605.3.2 we are NO LONGER
> > allowed a 1/3 stress increase for wind or seismic only unless specifically
> > given in the material section.  This means wood only.
> >
> > First question:  Did I read this correctly?
> >
> > Second question, {mostly for those of you in Texas where I know that every
> > home is Engineered :)} where the IBC has been adopted are you still using
> > Simpson numbers or since they have also included a 1/3 increase on steel
> are
> > you down grading them?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > George Richards, P. E.
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > *   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
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********