Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: UBC DRIFT VERSUS CBC DRIFT

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

G-

Have you checked the ICC website for errata?  My copy of CBC says the same.  I would think you would use the ASD load combinations of 1612.3, and explain the issue to a plan checker, if needed.

 

David A. Topete, SE

Structural Engineer

 

GFDS Engineers

543 Howard St., First Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

v : (415) 512-1301 x21

f : (415) 512-1302

dtopete(--nospam--at)gfdseng.com

www.gfdseng.com

 


From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603(--nospam--at)gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:30 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: UBC DRIFT VERSUS CBC DRIFT

 

Section 1630.9.1 of the UBC underwent an Errata. The section originally stated that "Where Allowable Stress Design is used and where drift is being computed, the load combinations of section 1612. 2 shall be used". The Errata changed the referenced section to 1612.3 which uses E/1.4.

In the CBC, it still says 1612.2. Did they flip flop again on this or is there an Errata out there for the CBC?

thanks,
-gm