Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: partition load

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: Message
I'm not so convinced.  The commentary says that 'in the absence of definitive partition layouts'  a value of 20 psf must be used.  They admit that value is conservative, and they note very clearly that it is to be considered a live load.  It's an alternate (and supposedly conservative) method to account for weights of partitions.  I don't see a reason that you shouldn't allow the load to be reduced. 
 
If they truly didn't want the Partition Load to be reduced it would have (at least should have) been written in the Dead Loads section (1606) or as an exception in 1607.9.
 

Peter Griem, P.E. 
Glastonbury, CT

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Holcomb [mailto:bholcomb(--nospam--at)brpae.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:08 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: partition load

I discussed this issue last year with William Wall, PE via email.  He is "Director of ICBO Resource Centers".  If I remember correctly, it was his opinion that the partition load could not be reduced for the same reason Robert Rogers states below.  Again, it was his opinion only... not an official "ICBO recommendation".
 
For typical office buildings where the Architect lays out the actual partition locations (steel studs and gyp), I have checked several layouts and consistently come up with less than 20 psf.  Lots of times I end up with approximately 12 psf.  But be careful, an office with a closet can easily exceed 20 psf partition load on an individual beam, depending on the wall layout.
 

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

 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Rogers [mailto:RRogers(--nospam--at)lorwil.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 11:23 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: partition load

Brian,
 
The commentary to the IBC states that the weights of all partitions are to considered as dead loads.  I think this "nixs" it as a candidate for live load reduction.
 
Robert Rogers, PE
 
-----Original Message-----
From: brian stanley [mailto:bstanley(--nospam--at)morabitoconsultants.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:30 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: partition load

IBC 2000 clearly states that if the design live load is less than 80psf for an office building and the partition layout is unknown, a partition live load of 20psf shall be included.  Can this 20psf partition live load be reduced (liveload reduction)?

Brian Stanley, P.E.
Baltimore, Md