Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
hazardous or chronic?[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "SEAINT" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: hazardous or chronic?
- From: "David Merrick" <MRKGP(--nospam--at)winfirst.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:04:02 -0500
dangerous, hazardous, chronic, non-complying, but it had a permit.
Please review the following and comments. This may be revised or corrected for errors.
My current conclusion is that a building is dangerous and should not be occupied if vertical dead and live loads have used up all of the safety factors in an equivalent present code design. That is at about 66% of code required strength. As for lateral loads, the dangerous (or hazardous) level might be about 33% of code design. A building standing at 50% of code should be reinforced within about 10 years, this may not be dangerous but it could be called a chronic condition.
The following is what I have used in the past, to quantify dangerous seismic conditions.
What is important here is that the code references never refer to earthquake magnitudes but only to Accelerations and return periods so I, as a code thumping engineer, can only do so too. A claim of dangerous must be defendable by references.
Down load files:
- Prev by Subject: Re: H3LP REQUESTED: Paper on "Structural Design for Residential: A Comparative Study"
- Next by Subject: Re: hazardous or chronic?
- Previous by thread: RE: Questions regarding Car Dealership Inspection
- Next by thread: Re: hazardous or chronic?