numbers are roughly equal in each equations (0.7E ~= E/1.4), why are the dead
load factors so different? The 1/3 increase will only make matters worse
with the higher dead load number.
-----Original Message----- From: David Williams
[mailto:dwilliams(--nospam--at)snydereng.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:36
PM To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: RE: IBC Load
stated in paragraph 1605.3.2 Formula 16-18 allows allowable stress
increases or load combination reductions where permitted by the material
section of IBC or referenced code. Formula 16-12 does not permit
allowable stress increases. I believe this accounts for the difference you see
in the equations.
David L. Williams,
P.E. Vice-Pres., Snyder Engineering, Inc. 409 Vandiver Drive, Bldg. 5,
Ste 203 Columbia, MO 65202 (573)449-9177
-----Original Message----- From: Jake Watson
[mailto:jwatson(--nospam--at)utahisp.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 3:08
PM To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: IBC Load
For those of you
using the IBC, I am hoping you can clarify a load combination.
Equations 16-12 (0.60D+0.7E) and 16-18 (0.90D+E/1.4) give dramatically
different results. This can't be intented. Any guidance would be