Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: partition load

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Rick,

FYI, from a pure legal point of view, the commentary does not mean much.
If it ain't in the code, then it ain't required.  Commentaries are not
mandatory requirements.

The lack of the partition allowances in table 1607.1 is a better rationale
for why live load reduction does not apply to them.  That would be an
"enforceable" rationale.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Rick Burch wrote:

> Robert,
> Yes, the IBC commentary does state that "the weights of all partitions
> are to be considered as dead loads", but it is a mystery what is meant
> by this. For example, partition loads are found in the live load section
> of the code, and section 1607.5 says "Such partition load shall not be
> less than a uniformly distributed live load of ..."  Obviously
> partitions receive the 1.6 load factor used for live loads.
>
> The only place that I see that partitions are considered as dead loads
> is in 1617.4.1 which specifies that partitions are to be included in the
> effective seismic weight of the structure. If this is what the
> commentary in 1607.5 was referring to, it could have been said a whole
> lot simpler and clearer than "partitions are to be considered as dead
> loads".
>
> The justification that I see in the IBC for not subjecting the partition
> load to live load reduction is found in the live load reduction section
> 1607.9 which says that "the live loads in Table 1607.1 are permitted to
> be reduced".  Since the partition allowance is not found in Table
> 1607.1, this sentence would exclude it from live load reduction. In my
> opinion, the code missed another chance for clarity by not simply saying
> whether or not partition live loads are subject to live load reduction.
>
> Rick Burch
> Columbia, SC
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********