Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Steel Tubes Laterally Supporting Glazing

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

Thanks, Mark.

 

What is your source?

 

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
 
V (949) 248-8588 F(949) 209-2509

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Deardorff [mailto:mdeardorff(--nospam--at)burkett-wong.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:04 AM
To:
seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Steel Tubes Laterally Supporting Glazing

 

I believe the value is L/175.

 

Mark E. Deardorff, Structural Engineer
Burkett & Wong
San Diego, CA


From: Bill Allen [mailto:T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:56 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Steel Tubes Laterally Supporting Glazing

 

I don’t recall anything code-wise (1997 UBC/2001 CBC) regulating the allowable deflection for glazing. Have I just missed it or is that correct?

 

If there isn’t such a regulation, what would be a reasonable/prudent/standard practice for such a design?

 

In my situation, strength is not a problem; I’m just not comfortable with the deflections I’m getting and my gut tells me to raise the question.

 

TIA,

 

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
 
V (949) 248-8588 F(949) 209-2509

-----Original Message-----
From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 5:44 PM
To: rshaw(--nospam--at)steelstructures.com; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: SMRF connection design

 

In a message dated 5/15/06 2:44:01 PM, rshaw(--nospam--at)steelstructures.com writes:

I’m amazed that we want to stick with the old – UBC 97, as an example, when we have such a wealth of new information and documents to use.


Who's "we"?  I'm sure that "we practicing structural engineers"  would like to use the latest and greatest information available, but some of the governing authorities--those folks who actually run our professional lives to a great extent--do not appear to be quite so interested.  Or maybe it's just the inertia of the political system that requires a decade to get even the obvious lessons of Loma Prieta, etc., incorporated into the legally effective code. 

Some of us may try to incorporate available knowledge into our own practices, providing that the resulting design *exceeds* the requirements of the effective code, however that may open us up to charges of wasting our client's money, even though we're just trying to make them safer.  It's a tough call. 

OTOH trying to use a new cutting-edge system may require the resources of a major client and a major engineering office, due to the need for extensive research, documentation, etc., that not all of us have available.


Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Richmond CA USA