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

RE: Plan Irregularity Type 5

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

This provision was always intended to address non
parallel systems and that is the way it has been
consistently interpreted in California.

This provision was introduced in the 1988 UBC and was
submitted by SEAOC.  At that time I was on the
committee that developed these provisions so I believe
that I can speak to the intent.

I have previously seen this phenomena where a plan
checker interprets code provisions totally contrary to
the intent and the sad part is that there is little
you can do about it if he will not accept reason.  

One option is to ask ICC for a code interpretation and
hope that they are more reasonable.  They charge a
nominal fee for this effort.  The building official
does not have to accept this opinion but it does carry
some weight.

The sad part is that there is no real justification
for saying this type of structure has an irregularity.
 If you do a rational analysic and consider the impact
of forces from any direction you should not have a
problem. There was one respected member of the
association that cited an analysis of a structure that
had some unexplained numbers and used this to push for
acceptance of this as an irregularity. 

Mark Gilligan

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