Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: FW: CMU Site Wall using 2001CBC -- Warning: Comical Aside

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Howard,
Was that covered in "Zum Trag- und 
Verschiebungsverhalten von Kopfbolzen bei zentrischem Zug"?  Or 
do we need to order something like "Zu den Verhaeltnissen unter 
Statikerberechnungstexten der vereinigten Staaten"?
:)
Jon Brody, SE
San Francisco


> Molly,
> As you know the IBC, and BSSC have marched on while the 
UBC/CBC has
> been caught in a time warp.  The UBC/CBC is still roughly based 
on the
> 1997 NEHRP.  I believe that you can still look to the more up to 
date
> NEHRP's for guidance.  The same 2 equations have been in the 
UBC and
> NEHRP for many cycles.  They just tweak them a bit.  Hx in the 
UBC is
> the same as z in NEHRP.  Hr is essentially the same as h in 
NEHRP.  (I
> feel like I am doing a translation from German to English.)
> 
> The 2000 NEHRP made it a bit more clear where they defined Z 
(hx for
> those who speak UBC) as "Height in structure of point of 
attachment of
> component.  For items at or below the base, z shall be taken as 0. 
> The value of z/h need not exceed 1.0."  h is defined as hr in the 
UBC
> world.
> 
> Now bring on the Rosetta Stone;>)
> 
> Regards,
> Harold Sprague
> 
> 
> >From: "Molly Skinner" <MSkinner(--nospam--at)kpff-irvine.com>
> >Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> >To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> >Subject: FW: CMU Site Wall using 2001CBC
> >Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:44:23 -0700
> >
> >
> >I am designing a free-standing site wall using the (UBC/CBC) Fp
> >equation of section 1632.2.  I know the value of ap=1.0 and 
Cp=3.0
> >per Table 16-O, but what value of hx should be used?  The code 
states
> >that hx is the element of component attachment elevation with 
respect
> >to grade, so to me, that means that hx should be 0, and as a 
result
> >the Fp,min equation will govern.  I've read the blue book, plus
> >looked at many books, but this situation never sees to be 
addressed
> >for free-standing (non-building walls).  Is using hx=0 appropriate? 
> >I had a plan checker tell me that it isn't and should be using hx =
> >hr.  Just curious what others are doing.
> >
> >Molly Skinner, P.E.
> >Irvine, CA
> 
> 
______________________________________________________
___________
> Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********