Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: IBC Sec. 1617.1

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Jason,

Don't look at is a someone else backing you up...you have some rather
clear (if not so clear in the IBC itself) documentation backing up your
postion.

After all, if the "ship goes down" the 1997 UBC likely will float better
than me, so I would think your would rather go down with it than me.
<grin>

And, you never know...I could really be some 12 year old kid who gets
amused by making up bogus engineering answers to "mess" with some "older"
folk!  <grin>

Regards,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Jason Kilgore wrote:

> Thanks Scott.  This agrees exactly with my argument, but now I have someone
> else to back me up.
>
> ----
> Jason Kilgore
> Leigh & O'Kane, L.L.C.
> jkilgore(--nospam--at)leok.com
> 816-444-3144
> 816-444-9655 (FAX)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Maxwell" <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 1:22 PM
> Subject: Re: IBC Sec. 1617.1
>
>
> > Jason:
> >
> > To me, the definition of E just after Equation 16-28 should help provide
> > some clarification.
> >
> > It states:
> >
> > "E = The combined effect of horizontal and VERTICAL earthquake-induced
> > forces."  (emphasis is mine)
> >
> > Add to that, that QsubE is defined as:
> >
> > "QsubE = The effect of horizontal seismic forces."
> >
> > To me, that makes the 0.2SsubDS*D term a vertical component term.
> >
> > Further more, this is consistant with how the 1997 UBC deals with the
> > similar situation (and the 1997 UBC is to some degree at least a minimal
> > basis for what is in the 2000 IBC).  The similar equation in the UBC (eq
> > 30-1) is E = rho*Eh + Ev.  And Ev is clearly defined as the vertical
> > component of the earthquake ground motion ("Ev = the load effect resulting
> > from the vertical component of the earthquake ground motion and is equal
> > to an addition of 0.5*Ca*I*D to the dead load effect, D, for Strength
> > Design, and may be taken as zero for Allowable Stress Design.")
> >
> > And last, since the 2000 IBC Seismic provisions are basically based off of
> > the NEHRP Provisions, you could get a hold of the 1997 NEHRP provision and
> > see what the commentary says on this section.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Scott
> > Ypsilanti, MI
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********