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

RE: UBC: How Do You Interpret 1997 UBC P

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
	This will take a little more leg work on your part, but I believe the
standard here as always is "standard of care of your piers."  It might be
worth your time to investigate several other parking garages that were
designed under the same building codes.  If they reduced the load in a
similar fashion, let the guy off the hook.  Also you mentioned that he has
done similar work for the developer.  Did he design all of the garages in
the same fashion?  Are there any problems with the others?
	Lastly, it is hard to punish someone for engineering judgment.  My company
does a lot of plan reviews and the general philosophy is unless I can point
directly to code section that is violated, the design engineer is assumed

Best of luck,

Jake Watson, E.I.T.
Salt Lake City, UT

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill(--nospam--at)]
Sent: March 06, 2002 7:50 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: UBC: How Do You Interpret 1997 UBC P

My question wasn't regarding the rationale for live load reduction due to
tributary area-I understand that.......

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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:
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********