Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Hi Rick,

thanks for your response on seaint, anybody dealing with OSHPD is going to
be hurting come Jan., I probably should have added more detail but was
trying to be brief:

<<You, didn't say, but I assume you got 1997 UBC Fp = 3.3Wp by using the
conservative Equation 32-1...>>
the Fp=3.3Wp does come from Eq 32-2

Ip is 1.5 so Eq. 32-1 gives me even worse 3.96Fp, I go to Eq 32-2 with
hx/hr=1, Ip=1.5 and Ap=2.5 which gives me Fp=3.3Wp

The Ap comes from table 16-O; 3-C.... Ap=2.5, Rp=3.0

OSHPD has an anchorage pre-approval program where the manufacturer can get a
anchorage assembly approved for any OSHPD installation good for 3 years
without having to do a site specific approval for each one. Yes that means
assuming the absolute worse case but saves them lots of time when selling
their machines all over the state. We've done several already but new code
values will be ridicules.

Problem is with Ap. The table gives no option between 1.0 and 2.5. we know
that the equipment period is not super short (to get Ap=1) but maybe in
range where Ap is less than 2.5. Is there a way the code calculates Ap??

The IBC sects. 1621.3.2 and .3.4  imply that testing may be required. I am
trying to find out more info on shake table testing of equipment also if you
have any insight.

Matt Jordan S.E.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   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) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********