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

RE: UBC: How Do You Interpret 1997 UBC Parag

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Now comes my ignorant question:

Other than due to tributary area, is there any other rationale for reduction
of the live load?

(The reason for my ignorance is that I have never used a reduction for live
load. I'm just a bit conservative that way, I suppose. Partly this has to do
with my training on Wal-Marts, where due to some specific past problems of
roof structural failure we did not reduce live load for any reason. But now
I'm having to examine the calculations of the EOR where he DID use the LL
Reduction).



William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
Polhemus Engineering Company
Katy, TX, USA
Phone (281) 492-2251
FAX (281) 492-8203
email bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc

-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Brock [mailto:gil(--nospam--at)raptsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:25 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: UBC: How Do You Interpret 1997 UBC Parag
Importance: High

Roger,

Maybe the low loads you get after reductions is the reason why many codes
(not including ACI) do not allow live load  reductions based on tributary
area for parking garages along with places of assembly, vaults, strongrooms
etc.


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********