Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: CMU Site Wall using 2001CBC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Molly,

You can decide on which section of code to use if you do a little research. For example,  if you have a copy of IBC, review the corresponding sections concerning components / elements and self-supporting non-building structures.

 

Unlike UBC, IBC is explicit about which section of code to use for components/elements and self-supporting non-building structures. If you are in the component section, IBC tells you to go to the non-building section if it is supported at grade. If you are in the non-building section, it refers back to the component section if it is supported by another building structure.

 

Suresh Acharya, S.E.


 

-------------- Original message from "Molly Skinner" : --------------

> Thank you all for all your input. It was nice to get such good response
> in my first question to the list.
>
> The wind does not govern in my case - it is a school building (I=1.15)
> with a near source factor of Ca=0.572 which results in a Fp force of
> 28psf (allowable - using the Fpmin equation). Several people have
> suggested using the non-building structures equations instead (Section
> 1634), but my question is why are masonry fences listed in Table 16-0 if
> you're not supposed to be using the equation of 1632? In this case, the
> plan checker didn't tell me what equation to use, just that what I did
> was incorrect. It's not a big deal for my design at this point, but I
> want to feel comfortable with a solution for future designs.
>
> Molly Skinner
> Irvine, CA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Molly Skinner
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 10:44 AM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject: FW: CMU Site Wall using 2001CBC
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********