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

Re: UBC Live Load Reduction - try 00 IBC 1607.9.2 on him

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Because the IBC has not been adopted yet in CA.  Intransigence is not
un-common, but I have provided full blue book commentaries in the past as
well as AISC documentation and told "that is great, but it isn't written
into the UBC and the UBC is the law."

One of the best aspects of the IBC, as I understand it, was the intent to
actually refer to the various industry documents rather than memorializing
typos and incorrect translations.


Paul Feather PE, SE
www.SE-Solutions.net
pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Haan, Scott M POA" <Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)poa02.usace.army.mil>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 9:59 AM
Subject: RE: UBC Live Load Reduction - try 00 IBC 1607.9.2 on him


> Here.  Here.  Quit bashing plan reviewers.  Not all plan checkers are bad
and
> not all plan check comments are bad.  Just like design engineers and
designs.
>
> Why not refer your friendly plan checker to 2000 IBC 1607.9.2 which
> specifically says you can use the reduction you are using on foundations.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Allen, S.E. [mailto:T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 8:45 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: UBC Live Load Reduction
>
> Before this gets into a plan checker or plan check consultant bashing
> thread, the volume and the quality of the comments in general are, IMO,
> reasonable; they might even be *light*, but don't tell him that. In this
> particular instance, I do not have the impression that he is trying to a.)
> justify the billing hours, b.) jealous of me (what's to be jealous of
> anyway?) or c.) trying to prove that he's smarter than me (that would be
too
> easy).
>
> I'm just looking for a code interpretation because I don't recall seeing a
> comment like this before.
>
> Regards,
>
> T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
> ALLEN DESIGNS
> Consulting Structural Engineers
> http://www.AllenDesigns.com
> V (949) 248-8588 . F (949) 209-2509
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Grinstead [mailto:Gary.Grinstead(--nospam--at)ci.stockton.ca.us]
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 9:36 AM
> To: dfisher(--nospam--at)fpse.com; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: UBC Live Load Reduction
>
> David,
>    Bill mentioned this was an outside plancheck consultant.  I've always
> suspected they create needless comments to justify their existence.  I
never
> minded a good thorough plancheck as it's another set of eyes to perhaps
spot
> something I may have overlooked.  However the one thing I can't stand is
> when the majority of the comments don't require a change in the plans.
>
>
> >>> dfisher(--nospam--at)fpse.com 05/13/05 9:28 AM >>>
> Gary:
>
> Possibly:
>
> 1) He has a comment sheet to try and fill up...
> Or
> 2) hours to bill?
> Or
> 3) He's jealous...
>
>
>
> With exception to Scott and all the other fine plan reviewers on this
list:
>
> (who are exempted from these comments...)
>
> "Those who can, design; those who cannot, are plan examiners"
>
>
>
> (I better go hide...)
>
>
>
>
>
> David L. Fisher  SE  PE
> Senior Principal
> Fisher + Partners Structural Engineers inc
> 372 West Ontario
> Chicago 60610
>
> 312.573.1701
> 312.573.1726 fax
> 312.622.0409 mobile
> www.fpse.com
>
> David L. Fisher  SE  PE
> Director
> Head of Design and Construction
> Cape Cod Grand Cayman Holdings Ltd
> 75 Fort Street
> Georgetown Grand Cayman BWI
> mobile 312.622.0409
> www.ccgch.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Grinstead [mailto:Gary.Grinstead(--nospam--at)ci.stockton.ca.us]
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 11:21 AM
> To: T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: UBC Live Load Reduction
>
> I've never heard of such an interpretation.  It sounds like the plan
> reviewer has never designed a building in his life.
>
>
> >>> T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net 05/13/05 9:03 AM >>>
> O.K., I realize I haven't worked with the building code for very long
> (tongue firmly planted in cheek), but I recently received a set of plan
> check comments including one that has caught me off guard.
>
>
>
> The plan check comment is as follows: "The live load reduction shall not
> apply to the footing design." I called the plan reviewer (outside
> consultant) to find out the section of the code which states this and he
> told me section 1607.4 and 1607.6. I scanned these two sections during our
> telephone conversation and still could not find where it said that I could
> not take a live load reduction for the footing design. He told me that the
> referenced sections stipulate live load reduction for beams and, since it
> does not specifically permit a live load reduction for footings, no
> reduction can be made. I hung up (politely) almost in shock and read the
> referenced sections again. I know I'm not a good reader (otherwise I would
> be an attorney), but the sections read (to me) "structural members", not
> "beams". I thought a footing was a "structural member", but if not, why
did
> he not cite columns as well?
>
>
>
> Anyone else have an interpretation?
>
>
>
> TIA,
>
>
>
>
> T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
>
>
> ALLEN DESIGNS
>
>
> Consulting Structural Engineers
>
>
>  <http://www.allendesigns.com/> http://www.AllenDesigns.com
>
>
> V (949) 248-8588
>
> .
>
> F (949) 209-2509
>
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********