Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: UBC DRIFT VERSUS CBC DRIFT[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: UBC DRIFT VERSUS CBC DRIFT
- From: "Gerard Madden, SE" <gmse4603(--nospam--at)gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:51:51 -0800
do you have the 98 CBC or 2001 CBC? I have VOl 2 of the 98 CBC, but not the 2001. Didn't think anything changed structurally so I didn't get the 2001 version of Vol II (el cheapo).
I'll re-check the UBC errata to see if they switched back. I know they flip flopped an errata but I thought that was the the EQ 30-7 thing.
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
543 Howard St. , First Floor
San Francisco , CA 94105
v : (415) 512-1301 x21
f : (415) 512-1302
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?
- Prev by Subject: RE: UBC DRIFT VERSUS CBC DRIFT
- Next by Subject: RE: UBC DRIFT VERSUS CBC DRIFT
- Previous by thread: RE: UBC DRIFT VERSUS CBC DRIFT
- Next by thread: RE: UBC DRIFT VERSUS CBC DRIFT