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

RE: Plan Irregularity Type 5

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I too have found the code language confusing for this item - implying
that any non-symmetric system creates a plan irregularity. This is not
merely a problem due to the fact that "a plan checker interprets code
provisions totally contrary to the intent" of the code - it is a problem
with the way the code language is worded. 

Mark - your explanation of the intent is helpful. I hope the code
committee will also consider rewording this provision. 

William C. Sherman, PE 
(Bill Sherman) 
CDM, Denver, CO
Phone: 303-298-1311
Fax: 303-293-8236
email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Gilligan [mailto:mark.gilligan(--nospam--at)] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 1:02 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject: RE: Plan Irregularity Type 5
> 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:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********