Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: '97 UBC Basic Load Combination

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
No, it is not a mistake.  The 2000 IBC Handbook states the same thing and 
puts it in italics to emphasize it.  There was a discussion on the list in 
April about this also.  Buddy Showalter explained the reasoning and made 
reference to an earlier discussion in October 2001 where there was a more 
in depth discussion of the factors.

Roger C. Davis
SDS Architects, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From:	STuong(--nospam--at) [SMTP:STuong(--nospam--at)]
Sent:	Tuesday, October 08, 2002 5:41 PM
To:	seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject:	'97 UBC Basic Load Combination

Dear Seaint,

When using Sec. 1612.3.1  Basic Load Combination (12-11)  D+.75[L+(Lr or S) 
+ (W or E/1.4)], the Code allowed using Cd(Cd = 1.33 for seismic or wind) 
for wood per UBC '97 Sec. 2316.2.   Would using Cd = 1.33 consider to be 
double dipping because there is a reduction in force of .75?

As for the Alternate basic load combination (Sec. 1612.3.2), Eqn.(12-16) 
D+L+S+E/1.4, the code does not allow using Cd since one-third increase is 
permitted in allowable stresses.

Is there a typo in the Basic Load Combination?

Thank you,


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