Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Residential Design Discussions

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill Allen wrote:

> Yes, you are right, the Code does not say "10/lw<=1", but we ALL know
> what it means, don't we? Aren't we ALL (when I say ALL, I am including
> checkers and "expert" witnesses) reasonably sensible and keep ourselves up
> to date by reading and following interpretive discussions on the Code in
> order to come up with a rational interpretation of an antiquated body of
> instruction (1997 UBC), enforced by an organization which has, for the
> time in it's history (ICBO) abandoned the off year amendment cycle? The
> avenue we are left with is an organization like the Structural Engineers
> California (SEAoC) to write "position papers" on things like Rho, rigid
> flexible diaphragms, 10/lw<=1, et. al., so that we designers have rational
> tools with which to use for design.

This is true and I agree with you, however on a recent project in So. Cal.
the plan checker rejected my calculation reference to the SEAOC position
paper and the 1999 Blue Book in restricting 10/lw <=1 stating "SEAOC and the
SEAOC Blue Book are not the code, the UBC is the code and this is not what
is written in the UBC."

As a professional who strives to keep "up to date", I find issues like this
very frustrating.

Paul Feather PE, SE

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