Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: IBC 2000 load combinations

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
So it seems that IBC is essentially doing away with the 1/3 increase by
adding the 1.3 in front of the W, correct?

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:34 AM
To: Seaint@Seaint. Org
Subject: Re: IBC 2000 load combinations


Dwain:

The 2000 IBC references the ASCE 7-98.  The referenced standards used in
the 2000 IBC are listed in chapter 35.

The reason for the 1.3 appear to be due to the fact that the alternate
allowable stress load combinations in section 1605.3.2 allow the use of
the good ol' 1/3 allowable stress increase that has traditionally been
used in most materials.  The "main" ASD load cases (section 1605.3.1) does
not seem to allow the use of the stress increase.

Just my take on it from a brief look.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Dwain Hendershot wrote:

> Section 1605.3.2 Alternate basic load combinations indicates that ASCE7
wind
> loads must be increased by a factor of 1.3 but you get applicable
increases
> in allowable stresses.  Section 1605.3.1 does not increase the same wind
> load but does allow an increase to wood shear walls for duration per
chapter
> 23.  It seems to me that using the alternate load combinations penalizes
you
> 30% when checking allowables for shear walls.  The only explanation I can
> come up with is that maybe the IBC is referencing ASCE7-95.  The wind load
> factors appear to have been increased in ASCE7-98 according to its
> commentary section C2.3.2.  Is this a correct interpretation?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dwain Hendershot
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********



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