Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
This is not at all unusual. Many parts of the country , including
California, are going to get smaller seismic base shear than the 97 UBC. The
main reason for this is the detailed spectral maps that are used with the
IBC. The 97 UBC assigns seismic zones to very  broad and general areas such
as costal California. However with IBC, many areas such as San Jose and San
Diego may end up getting smaller base shear compared to the 97 UBC.

Personally, I much prefer seismic zones. I think we are putting way too much
faith in the accuracy of these geological maps. Especially since most of the
recent major quakes such as Kobe, occurred on previously unknown faults.

Ben Yousefi, SE
San Jose, CA 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Holcomb [mailto:bholcomb(--nospam--at)brpae.com]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:44 AM
To: Seaint (E-mail)
Subject: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC


I am looking at IBC & UBC to see which code I would prefer to use for a
building design in Las Vegas.  (From what I have been told, we can use
either... I don't know why... maybe the city is in the process of adopting
the IBC.)

I have checked the seismic design forces and what I got is that the '97 UBC
seismic forces are higher than the 2000 IBC.  Does that seem logical?  UBC
zone is 2B and for IBC, Ss = 0.615 and S1 = 0.182.  Beyond calculating the
seismic forces, it seems that the two codes are similar in their application
to the design of the structural elements.  Am I missing anything?

Any guidance you can give would be appreciated!



Bruce D. Holcomb, PE
Butler, Rosenbury & Partners
300 S. Jefferson, Suite 505
Springfield, MO 65806-2217
ph (417) 865-6100
fax (417) 865-6102




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

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