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

RE: Plan Irregularity Type 5

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
This is exactly why I am sympathetic to the reviewer, even if I believe his interpretation is incorrect, because it is hard to explain why that section says what it says in light of what it really means.  I'm sure as a reviewer you get pretty used to hearing engineers tell you that a  code provision doesn't mean what it appears to say and (borrowing the contractor's favorite out) that's how they've always done it and no one has ever complained before.  I don't like being in that position, but at this point that and a few references from some design manuals are all I have.  

Paul Crocker, PE, SE

>>> "Sherman, William" <ShermanWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com> 05/09/05 06:08AM >>>
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)cdm.com 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Gilligan [mailto:mark.gilligan(--nospam--at)sbcglobal.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 1:02 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org 
> 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: 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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********